Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 21 January 2006

Sathya Sai Baba received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. August 4, 2004.

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.

Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2 June 2005 - January 2006

Reference Problems

I wanted to discuss two issues in the article: 1: David Bailey's claims that the Water Project failed and 2: Jens Sethi's complaint in Munich. First of all, someone needs to provide proof that the Water Project failed. It did not fail and is currently fully operational. Secondly, there is no proof that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich. Jens Sethi claimed he did. The India Today article did not say they confirmed that Jens Sethi filed a complaint. They simply made reference to it (the same way Sai Antagonists made reference to it) and in the the same way they made reference to other second information (even getting the date to Tal Brooke's book wrong). They did confirm they received a handwritten "affidavit" (although it was never said to be an attested affidavit). So where is the proof of the complaint, Andries? Until you can provide proof, it is a claim, which is exactly what I called it. And if Moreno has made the page into a "blog link resource" by citing information on his site, then you are guilty of the same Andries, as you have done the same thing by posting many links to your Sai Antagonistic site (many of which do not link to your "scholarly" people). Your so called "scholars" are not authorities on Sathya Sai Baba any more or less than Moreno. Thaumaturgic 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages an assertion (such as that Jens Sethi filed a complaint in Munich) made by a Misplaced Pages:reputable sources (India Today) is considered proof. Doubts voiced on Moreno's homepage do not change this guideline. Why doesn't Moreno try to get an article published about SSB in an academic magazine about religious movements, like critic Alexandra Nagel succeeded in doing so. If he succeeds then I won't protest in giving space to Moreno's article here. Andries 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to separate the homepages attacks from the rest of the information, as also proposed by Jossi Fresco some time ago. Andries 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not proof when they related second-hand information. India Today also said Tal Brooke's book was written in the 1980's (when it was actually written in the 70's). Is this proof as well? And why are you removing the devotees and proponents section without a discussion? Alexandra Nagel got her college homework published. Big deal. She is still biased and she is not an authority on Sathya Sai Baba. Thaumaturgic 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not going to explain the Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies again and again to you. If you think that I am wrong then read and ask others. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
2. This has been proposed and discussed extensively by Jossi Fresco some time ago. And after thinking about it, I think he is at least partially right. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
3. With regards to Alexandra Nagel, I already explained this on the talk page some time ago. In addition I want to state that she managed to get her article about SSB published in one of the most prestigious academic magazine here in the Netherlands, not just as a guest contributor. Andries 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sai Antagonists, like Barry Pittard, have admitted helping give information to the India Today writers. India Today included second-hand information that was sent to them. India Today did not verify that Jens Sethi filed a complaint. Therefore, it is a "claim". Alexandra Nagel got her article published because it was a college paper. Alexandra Nagel is not a cult expert, a guru expert or a Sathya Sai Baba expert. She already admitted being against Sathya Sai Baba and her views are biased. It doesn't matter how much you quote her and reference her, that doesn't make her an expert on Sathya Sai Baba. You just keep talking about Nagel because you are her good friend (according to Moreno). You cling to her like she is all you have. Thaumaturgic 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, so what if Pittard helped India Today? What matters for Misplaced Pages is that India Today considered Pittard's information credible and after verification decided. It does not matter for Misplaced Pages that you do not consider Alexandra Nagel an SSB expert. What matters is that the Free university of Amsterdam thinks she is. It does not matter that I was behind the question in the European Parliament. (deliberate revelation) What matters is that the question was asked. Andries 22:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please list the link to Alexandra Nagel's scholarly article that was published in a "prestigious academic magazine". I would like to see it. And remember, college homework does not count. Thaumaturgic 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

De Sai Paradox This article was published in the magazine of the Free University of Amsterdam about religious movements. Andries 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Her article is also listed here Andries 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Barry Pittard is not credible. Moreno has already made a strong case against him using Pittard's own words: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Pittard/making-the-case.html Since you and other Sai Antagonists claim to be in contact with victims, why don't you have Jens Sethi send you a copy of his complaint? Until you have proof, it is a claim. Are you saying that Lordegard's sexual abuse claim against you is true because it was published on the internet and gave full names to people you allegedly molested? You would demand proof. I am demanding the same. Until then, a claim is a claim. Great, your article on Alexandra Nagel is only written in Dutch. Thaumaturgic 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did I claim to be in contact with Jens Sethi? Your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is clearly wrong. Read Misplaced Pages:reputable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research. If a reputable source (e.g. the New York Times) wrote about the allegations against me then it can also be written in Misplaced Pages in my biography. Reputable sources have stated that sethi filed a complaint as a fact so it can be stated as a fact here. Ask others if you do not believe me. Andries 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You, as the former Webmaster (and now the Main Representative) to the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba, claim that former followers have the private contact details to supposed victims. This would mean that you should have Jens Sethi private contact information as well. Or are you publishing stories on your site without confirming them? Again, India Today published information that was sent to them. They did not claim, in any way, that they verified Jens Sethi complaint. Now if you want this to be stated as a fact, then I guess, using Misplaced Pages's outlines, Tal Brooke's book must have been written in the mid 1980's, despite the fact that it was published in the 70's, just because India Today published that comment. India Today was completely influenced by Sai Antagonists. I will leave the comment about Sethi as is. Now, we need to discuss David Bailey's claim that the water project failed. It didn't. Thaumaturgic 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, please take your time to read and study Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies before editing Misplaced Pages, especially before editing controversial articles such as this one and especially before reverting edits on controversial, such as you did yesterday. The following excerpt from Misplaced Pages's official policy (not just a guideline) gives a reply to your concern. From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

"Misplaced Pages should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

The above excerpt explains why I will not fulfill and cannot fulfill your request regardings Jens Sethi criminal complaint in Munich. Apart from that I am not saying that all the critical material about SSB perfectly follows this policy but the quotes and references from Moreno's homepage are very far removed from following this policy. Andries 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, it's about time you level with everyone about Alexandra Nagel's "scholarly" material. The article "De Sai Paradox" was a college assignment paper. Alexandra Nagel emailed me and made reference to "De Sai Paradox" and said, "It encapsulates basically the same material as the English article SB Shiva-Shakti" (which was another college assignment paper: Reference). Nagel has been recycling the same material, over and over again, in college assignment papers (just look at her references and you will notice how eerily similar they are). Nagel has done what other Anti-Sai Activists have done, except other Anti-Sai Activists have NOT used their material for their college classes. Nagel did. Now if you want to cite Nagel's homework assignment "De Sai Paradox" as authoritative, when Nagel said it encapsulated basically the same material in ther Shiva-Shakti homework assignment, then you are trying to fool everyone with an article that basically talks about morphing penises! Oh, that sounds "scholarly" to me!

SSS108 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

wrong. The Sai paradox by Nagel was not a college assigment but an official publication in the series Religious movements in the Netherlands of the Free university of Amsterdam, edited among others by Reender Kranenborg. Andries 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I emailed Alexandra Nagel about the article in question and she adamantly refuses to comment on it or clarify whether or not it was a college paper. This is strange because Alexandra Nagel always answered my emails. Now, however, she is refusing to comment on it. Therefore, my original claim that this paper was a college assignment still stands.

SSS108 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Devotees and Proponents Viewpoint being deleted by Andries?

Jossie, why is it that a devotees and proponents point of view, which is an entirely applicable point of view, is being deleted from this article? Why is it that only the antagonistic point of view is being allowed without a rebuttal? Now Andries may try to argue his case on his repeated references to "scholarly" people, etc. However, this is not applicable for the Devotees & Proponents point of view when Moreno is the main source that speaks for devotees and proponents. His viewpoints cannot be deleted simply because they don't fit into Andries idea of who should be posting material. Thaumaturgic 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Because extensively quoting from Moreno's homepage that is not favorably cited either by mainstream media and scholars and contradicts their writings blatantly breaks the Misplaced Pages policy Misplaced Pages:verifiability. Andries 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I re-added this article to the Misplaced Pages:Request for Comment about the use of Moreno's homepage. Andries 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest that Devotees and Proponents present their POV? Who are they supposed to reference? The fact of the matter is that I represent the Proponents POV. Since I am the main proponent, writing in favor of Sathya Sai Baba (and there are no other active writers), my site is authoritative for the Proponents POV. As a matter of fact, you were the one who started attributing my viewpoints to me. Your attempt to eliminate my POV would qualify as Pov Pushing. My POV can be checked and verified on my thoroughly documented and referenced website.

SSS108 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you also wrote extensively on your homepage (and as the only one) that the theory of special relativity is wrong (thoroughly "referenced", and "proven"), could your homepage be extensively quoted and referenced at that article? Clearly not. Unless of course, the article is cited as a credible source either in mainstream media or preferrably by people who have published articles in peer reviewed articles about special relativity. It is certainly not be used as a source for that article if what you wrote contradicts the findings and conclusions of the latter. Andries 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is just one aspect. You need to conform to other content guidelines as well such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS. I don't know much about this subject but it seems if we are to apply your argument to the majority of sources in this article we will end up with no sources that fall within what is considered reliable sources, with the exception of a couple of press references and a few obscure books. Is that not the case? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that the majority is not well sourced is an exaggeration. Some of the article is not well sourced and, as I said, the majority of the apologist material is very far removed from the Misplaced Pages policy. The beliefs and practices section that is undisputed is not (yet) well referenced though it is mainly sourced to primary sources. The best referenced and sourced part is the critical material because of the considerable media attention to the controversy. If most of the apologist material (Moreno's homepage) is removed then the article will be better sourced and referenced than the average Misplaced Pages article of this size. Andries 10:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking "special relativity" and peer reviewed studies! We are talking subjective and unverifiable allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba. You are trying to present your POV without allowing me to present mine, because my POV undermines your cause and comments. If you want to talk authoritative, then you should cite the indictments against Sathya Sai Baba. Since you and your clan have not even attempted to take your allegations to a court of law, in over 5 years, you are attempting to wage a smear campaign against SSB, using Misplaced Pages as a means toward that end. You have already conceded, on this same talk page, that the "mainstream media" you cite are biased against SSB. You said, out of your own mouth, that they were favorably inclined towards Anti-Sai Activists. Therefore, they are not neutral and opposing views are allowed. Also, many of your "mainstream media" did not take into account, nor mention, other relevant information that is given on my site. My site even links to Anti-Sai Sites. I can fully substantiate my POV and it IS relevant to the material posted on this article about Sathya Sai Baba.

SSS108 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108/Joe Moreno, Can you please explain, referring to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, why your homepage needs to be quoted and referenced so extensively? Andries 11:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I don't know who wrote all that, but I would guess it's Joe, because it has words bolded for emphasis, as well as failure to consider the opposing point of view (there is a brief mention of one guy, Al Rahm, but that is only to refute him in the next sentence, so it isnt really a non-biased perspective). In short, this is a vanity entry, biased pov, and not notable (if it was a short paragraph i wouldn't have any problems with the latter point, but it goes on and on). See Category:Misplaced Pages guidelines, and if a neutral person wants to write a few lines summarising Joe's arguments, include that, just like we would the opinions and arguments of any other person. If no-one else wants to, I'll do it, I consider myself neutral. Joe I'm sure after reading this you'll add additional rants to your page against me, well, so be it. I'm wearing my wikipedian hat here, so I don't have to pander to anyone's POV preferences M Alan Kazlev 12:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even my personal TV performance with regards to SSB is more suitable for inclusion than Moreno's homepage. We could write for example. "The critical former follower Andries Krugers Dagneaux expressed the opinion in the programme tabloid (Nov. 11th 2002) on the Dutch station SBS6 that the sexual abuse by SSB in combination with his claims of healing may lead to the suicide or near-suicide of sick young men who come to SSB for help. The editors of the programme stated that SSB leaves his ex-followers in a state of devastation." Andries 13:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Andries is the former webmaster and current "main representative" for the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba on the internet, he should not be allowed to determine which points of view are eliminated without an authoritative decision from Misplaced Pages moderators. Apparently, the only point of view Andries is allowing is his own, without allowing Devotees and Proponents to express their point of view. Moreno is the main source for our point of view, hence he cited. Thaumaturgic 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiedia policies does not have such a policy. You keep however breaking an official policy Misplaced Pages:verifiability. Besides I hardly deleted anything I only organized the article more or less as per Jossi's recommendations. Andries 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole other side to these allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. You are presenting a highly biased and antagonistic point of view. Until your side is weeded out for verifiability issues, you should not be weeding out the Devotees and Proponents point of view. And this decision needs to be made by someone other than you. You were the former webmaster for the largest site opposing Sathya Sai Baba for years and now are the Main Representative. You, of all people, should not be making any changes without an authoritative decision from other moderators who can view this issue neutrally. Thaumaturgic 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that the antagonistic side perfectly follows the verifiability policy but the apologist's side blatantly breaks it. So if there is something in this article to be improved then the blatant violations of policy should be dealt with first. My background (that you by the way misrepresent) has no consequences for my duties and rights as an editor. Andries 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. You cite your antagonistic website repeatedly. As Moreno has has already stated here, and to me in private, you were the one who began attributing his comments to him and you were the one who started demanding that references be added. I simply added references to Moreno's comments as you did with yours. You don't seem to mind these things when it comes to your point of view, but you take an unusual hostility when it comes to the Devotees and Proponents point of view. This proves you are biased. Even other editors on Misplaced Pages have accused you of the same. So we need to take this issue above you, a biased opponent, to someone who is neutral. Thaumaturgic 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several differences

1. Most of the references to exbaba are to media article or to scholarly articles by Nagel, not to just a homepage. Exbaba contains many articles by many authors.
2. Moreno's homepage is neither cited by the media nor scholarly articles, unlike the homepage of Steel and Priddy
3. Moreno did not publish books on SSB that he now rejects on his homepage
4. Moreno did not publish a book on SSB unlike Premanand and Priddy. The BBC favorably quotes Premanand.

Andries 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

May be an edit war is a good thing because that seems to be one of the few things that evoke the interest of serious editors. A Misplaced Pages:Request for comment has already been filed and they generally do not help in a dispute is my experience. Andries 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting that your articles and media sources are biased. I don't know how many times I am going to have point this out Andries, but YOU said, out of your own mouth, that the BBC was sympathetic and agreed with Anti-Sai Activists. If you insist on citing them, then you must also state they are biased. It doesn't matter if Nagel wrote scholarly articles, she has already professed, on the online petition, that she is an Anti-Sai Activist, all of her papers and comments are against SSB and she continues to take an Anti-Sai Stance. Therefore, your MAIN reference is openly biased against SSB. She is NOT neutral. Where have Steel and Priddy's HOMEPAGE been cited by the media? Who are Proponents supposed to reference? You are eliminating the main reference for Proponents because my POV undermines your cause and the bias you are trying to promote using Misplaced Pages. Period.

SSS108 23:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And I have already stated many times that it does not matter for Misplaced Pages that media articles are biased. Please show me Misplaced Pages policies that says that Misplaced Pages articles should correct scholarly or media bias instead of following them. Andries 23:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nagel has referenced Steel. And Premanand has published Priddy's critical book. Andries 23:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me where Misplaced Pages does not allow a Devotees and Proponents POV. You were the one who added my name to my comments and you were the one who demanded references be made. Now that these have been done, you realize that your Anti-Sai POV is compromised, so you are making a fuss about it now. You are continually setting up opposing POVs for failure. You demand a certain standard and when it is applied, you say it isn't allowed for other POV. Tough luck! I agree with Thaumaturgic. Someone other than YOU needs to make the decision. You are thorougly biased and I am not going to let you get away with it.

SSS108 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, the burden of proof for an statement in an article on the person making it. The person demanding the references was Jossi, not me. I do not have to proof that proponents have no place in this article. You have to prove, referring to guidelines and policies, that they do have a place here. I now have removed all contents that is only based on home pages both critical and antagonistic. Andries 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You can quote media or scholarly articles or SSB himself but you have failed to supply one good reason referring to Misplaced Pages policies why your homepage can be extensively quoted and referenced. Andries 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest no more than a paragraph on Joe Moreno, that includes both his claims and criticism of them. For the latter, try following up some of the links from a Google for Gerald Joe Moreno and you will see there is a great deal of criticism (there's a lot of links to wiki mirrors i notice, also). By having both Moreno's and his critics' views, both sides can get a hearing. But half the SSB article shouldn't be taken up with all this, as it is now, it is ridiculous. It looks in fact like the page has been hijacked. You will also notice that "gerald joe moreno" gets only 85 hits on Google, which includes the wikipedia mirrors. So - not notable.

Also, while Andries has indeed been involved in an anti-SSB website, i looked at the articles he wrote for wiki (and made some suggestions with one of them) and i don't have problems with them. I have never seen him make ad hominem attacks against devotees the way Joe does against ex-devotees. I am not writing this to criticise Joe (I have made my comments known elsewhere), but to support Andries.

The antagonistic you are wrong i am right attitude that can be sene on this discussion page characterises the whole Sai / ex-Sai controversy in general and makes it such an ugly thing. i have already written about this from an unbiased point of view on my own webpage. M Alan Kazlev 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why this is such an ugly thing is because it involves deep emotional investments related to giving life meaning and in case of some former followers personal trauma. It is also a matter of life and death in some cases because of SSB's claims of healing that attracks sick young men whom SSB then sexually abuses. Andries 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, a Misplaced Pages:Google test is not a good way to determine whether some book or a writer is a good source for a Misplaced Pages article because the writings may be if high quality but "hidden" in libraries. However in this case, the only writings by the writer are on his home page and I did not see him quoted by the media in the google test, so in this case it happens to be a good test. Andries 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Andries is not biased! Just look at his comment above.

Not even one alleged victim has even attempted to file a court case against SSB, first-hand, despite Pittard offering them FREE "world class legal resources". These allegations are 5-30 YEARS old.

SSS108 00:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Alan Kazlev: Who is failing to consider opposing POVs? On this wikipedia article, there is an entire section, 4 times bigger than the Proponents section, that discusses the opposing POV! Thaumaturgic and I have been working for the inclusion of a Devotees and Proponents POV, and our POV has been systematically butchered and altered by Andries. He chronically seeks to undermine the Devotees and Proponents POV.

and you chronically seek to undermine his.

sure Andries has his agenda, so have you and so do I. But when someone's agenda involves ad hominem attacks, i get a little cynical.

Furthermore, you cannot write a neutral POV for Proponents when you have already conceded, several times, that you have NOT even read Anti-Sai Sites.

If by read anti-SB sites you mean read every single page and word, then the answer is, i concede, i havent. But I have read a little of the material that is there. The sheer weight of all this material, the sure number of claims, was enough to convince me (even against my better feelings because I have always gotten a good vibe from SSB) that there is obviously some abuse going on. We aren't talking about a few embittered ex-disciples with an ax to grind. I've also communicated with people who i find to be sincere, why should they every single one of them all be liars? Finally, googling your name Joe as i did a little earlier (see above link) reveals a whole lot of criticisms of your methods, so are you the only one who is right?

The case involving SSB and other gurus like Da, Rajneesh, Mataji, etc, against which there have been similar claims of abuse levelled, is far far too complex to fit into black and white judgmental they are wriong and I am right categories. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to you Joe, although you have been decent enough to put our correspondence up on the web, so anyone who wants to can go to your site and read and make up their own mind.

How can you sum up my POV when you continually misrepresent my POV due to your lack of knowledge of Anti-Sai material?

see above comments

You rely on Anti-Sai Activists to sum up their arguments to you in private emails. You accept these arguments blindly, without even attempting to read their sites fully!

If i did, then i would say outright that SSB is a fake. As you know, I have never said that, and i challenge you Joe with all your obsessive attention to detail to find anywhere where I did say that

Even as recently as January 5th, you STILL admitted you have NOT read Anti-Sai Sites.

yes, i haven't read the whole sites through, with their hundreds of pages each, and i expect i never will. I have read pages here and there, enough to give me an understanding of what they are on about. That is why, as I said, I have been forced to change my opinion of SSB. originally I thought Tal Brooke was either lying or self-deluded, now i concede he may have been telling the truth, his Christian fundamentalist belief-system notwithstanding

So how can you discuss my POV when you attack my POV without even having researched the material in question (admittedly)? And you are also forgetting that other editors consider Andries highly biased. I am not the only one who has issues with him. You do not consider Andries biased because of your private email correspondence with him.

I have only had two emails from him, both very short, over the last 5 years or so. For the rest i only know Andries through wikipedia. If you want to call that a "private email correspondence", yes, technically it is.

I think other editors would find that laughable, as do I.

well, perhaps those same editors can be referred to your numerous ad hominem attacks (sometimes infantile - e.g. Robert Priddy is several times referred to as "Priddles") and muck raking against ex-devotees

One possible solution to the curent problem be to have people who either, like me, are non-aligned, or else those who have not been involved in the organisation, and never been a devotee, do the editing of this page M Alan Kazlev 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I do not agree with YOUR methodology. It should be left to moderators to resolve this issue, not you. Therefore, I am reverting the article. Invariably, this issue will be further refined to comments that have been made in notable media. This would eliminate even more your Anti-Sai POV. Also, I would like to see you enforce the same policy on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article, as well as the others. Step upto the plate.

SSS108 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem in confining this article to comments made in notable media, notable books, and in scholarly article and statements by SSB himself. But let us not use double standards in that by allowing a homepage to be quoted without the homepage of Steel. Andries 00:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic logic there, Andries. First you argue that references must be made in notable media. So you cite Nagel. Brian Steel has not been directly cited by the media, but you want to cite him because he was listed as a reference on Nagel's article! Of course, your current scheme conveniently omits the Devotees and Proponents POV and allows full dominance of the Anti-Sai POV! This is unfair and it needs to be resolved by a neutral moderator. Not you, the Webmaster turned Main Representative for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet! Reference

SSS108 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Steel is cited by scholarly sources then that it is at least some indication that his opinion does matter. Why do not you try to get cited by the media and scholarly sources. Then we can talk seriously about quoting your homepage. Now it it just a clear-cut matter that your homepage does not deserve to be quoted according to wikipedia guidelines. Andries 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nagel also cited 'anonymous' sources in her articles as well. Are they reliable too? Again, YOU are determing what is noteworthy and what is not. My site is new to the internet. Anti-Sai Activists have had YEARS to spread their propaganda and have it published on various media. My site has been around a little over a year and was under construction until 5 months ago. How is my site supposed to be cited when it is new? And if my site does not deserve to be cited "according to Misplaced Pages guidelines", WHY have you cited Anti-Sai Sites for the last several years? And are you going to remove personal sites on the other Sai Related articles as well? If you want to set the standard, you should at least follow it. Why did you begin attributing my website to me and now change your decision? Don't blame me for your wishy-washy standards. I am not budging one inch. I am in for the long-haul. I suggest you buckle down and do the same.

SSS108 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nagel cites sources that are anonymous for the public. However I know from personal experience that she does contact these persons. But that does not mean that she can mention their names on the internet. Andries 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, kindly post your response in one section. Seperating my post with your responses is confusing and does not allow my point of view to be read without disruption.

First and foremost, why don't you show my attempt to undermine the Anti-Sai POV? I have not edited the articles for quite a while. My comments have been limited to this discussion page and today, after a long gap, I reverted the article. Thaumatugic has. You are not aware of this basic fact? Where has Thaumatugic edited the Anti-Sai POV, removing text? He has not. He simply added relevant material under the relevant sections. At no time, in ANY section, has Thaumaturgic modified the Anti-Sai POV. Get your facts right. Thaumatugic has mostly limited his activity to the Devotees and Proponents POV.

Secondly, you are unaware of the MANY "ad hominem" attacks made against SSB, devotees and proponents. You would have been aware of these numerous attacks had you read Anti-Sai Sites. Since you still are unaware of these basic facts, this proves that your research into Anti-Sai Material has been exceedingly sparse. If you care to read this page in depth, you will see how I already talked about Anti-Sai "ad hominem" attacks under the section "I suggest a seperate section about SSB's miracles". Andries also made personal slurs against me as well, but where do you talk about his "ad hominem" attacks? You don't.

Regarding Tal Brooke, if you accept his story, then you must accept that someone, somewhere else, has lied about the allegations. I discussed this already on the following section: Reinier Sandt :: Did Nagel and Alleged Sexual Abuse Victims Lie?

SSS108 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ok, will post in one section

Thanks for clarifying re Thaumatugic. I incorrectly attributed the edits to you on the basis of style and content, but obviously several people can write in similar ways

re Thaumatugic's edits, my point was that there was so much material - paragraphs - from a "not notable" source. As i said, i would be happy with (and indeed like to see) a aparagrah presenting your veiws,a nd the controversy regarding them

ad hominem attacks. Yes, I have seen them going both ways on at leaat one Yahoo group. As for SSB, he is a public figure. Or are you saying no public figure can ever be criticised?

My concern is however with unprovoked attacks on both ordinary devotees (and I don't mean those who engage in flamewars!) and ex-devotees. Your own website contains many ad hominem attacks, so you cannot complain if someone else attacks you back.

You could have made your case Joe perfectly well without constantly claiming this person is a paedophile, that person is a pornographer, and so on, or using purile wordplays such as "Basava Premanand, India's leading rationalist and skeptic, irrationally and septically speculates on what happened on June 6th, 1993"

concerning Tal Brooke, I do not know whether his story of SSB making sexual advances at him is true or not, but as i said these early claims of his (which I originally rejected, and even put up a page on my website quoting another SSB devotee who criticises Tal Brooke) do fit a larger pattern of reports, which lends weight to what he is sayiong (obviously, I am not talking about Brooke's fantasies regarding Sai Baba being the anti-christ etc, nor am i referring to the issue of whether or not SSB is a hermaphrodite).

M Alan Kazlev 01:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, it is getting tedious talking to you. I have to repeatedly substantiate each and every single point, because you have NOT fully read both sides to the Sai Controversy. Of course, I have to explain each and every point, because each and every point is important. But when I do this, you accuse me of being "obsessed", etc. You do this even in face of the admission of NOT having read Anti-Sai Sites! You read a paragraph here and an article there, combine it with private email correspondences with Anti-Sai Activists and then draw a definitive conclusion.

Thaumaturgic and I correspond through Instant Messenger and he often summed up my POV in his.

Alan, originally that is ALL I asked to be submitted to the Misplaced Pages article: One pargraph! Thaumaturgic did exactly that and Andries was the one who kept dissecting that paragraph, adding more and more Anti-material, which required more and more Pro-Sai material to clarify it. Andries then began attributing these viewpoints to me. Then, after attributing these viewpoints to me, he claimed I am "non-notable" and wants to delete the Proponents POV. It seems Andries is adept in creating situations where others are forced into a particular situation, and once in that situation, Andries pulls out Misplaced Pages's Guidelines and eliminates views that are contrary to his own.

As you can see, I have made NO attempt to suppress or eliminate the Anti-Sai POV. Andries is trying to suppress and eliminate the Devotees and Proponents POV. Why doesn't this concern you? Of course Public Figures are open to scrutiny and criticism. Where did I say they should not be? Even on my site, I attempt to promote a 2-sided inquiry by providing links to Anti-Sai Sites. Anti-Sai Sites won't even link to my site or my responses (they even banned my site from linking to them directly). I think this shows who of guilty of suppressing information.

What you fail to realize is that Anti-Sais have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks against SSB, Devotees and Proponents. However, when the tables are turned, they don't like it. As I said once before, Anti-Sais have attacked me, SaiOnline, Radiosai, Goldstein, Kalam, Kasturi, Alwe, Tigrett, Ramanathan, Sullivan, Krystal, Hislop, Shah, Jogarao, Jagadeeshan, Bozzani, Meyer and many others. Glen Meloy attacked Dr. Wayne Dyer simply because Dyer recommended SSB's books. Barry Pittard attacked Rabbi David Zeller simply because he spoke at Sai Interfaith Conferences. Barry Pittard is also currently attacking Dr. Anand simply because he gave a tribute to SSB at his 80th B-day celebrations.

I am NOT complaining about the ad hominem attacks made against me. I am complaining about the double standards where Anti-Sais feel THEY are perfectly entitled to attack others and scrutinize them, but feel they are beyond reproach when the SAME thing is done to them. Why aren't you criticizing Anti-Sai Activists when they attack the character of others and document it on their sites (which is irrelevant to the Sai Controversy)? I have done exactly what Anti-Sai Activists have done. No more. No less. Once again, this points your lack of knowledge regarding the Sai Debate.

Did you even read the link that I provided about Tal Brooke and the hermaphrodite claims made against SSB? It sounds like you didn't even read that page! This is the problem I have with you. You rather skim through the information than dedicate the time to research it thoroughly. But when I research it thoroughly, you accuse me of being "obsessed"!

SSS108 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We already discuss edits before reverting but we do not come any closer. Andries 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, why don't you do anything about it? Andries has already reverted around 6 times with impunity. I am abiding by the 3RR. Andries is not.

SSS108 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, I made a completely new version of the article by removing all references to homepages, both critical and apologist. That is not a revert. Andries 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A completely new article that completely eliminates the Devotees and Proponents POV.

SSS108 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try to re-write the section without violating Misplaced Pages policies? Andries 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Andries, that is difficult to answer when you, for years, allowed the personal homepages to Anti-Sai Activists, violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Once the Pro-Sai viewpoint was added, all of a sudden, "I" am violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Again, YOU are changing the standard to PROMOTE your POV. Whatever is written must pass through your hands. This is not fair considering you are an Anti-Sai Activist.

SSS108 01:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, you were blatantly violating Misplaced Pages policies. May be me too in the past but only a bit. Andries 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating Personal Homepages

Since the Exbaba Site is Andries and Reinier's personal homepage, we must also remove links to their site as well since this is violating Misplaced Pages's Guidelines. The references will have to cited from their original source without links. Since personal homepages cannot be cited, then we must remove the ExBaba links. It is NOT fair to say that personal homepages cannot be referenced, but then have the personal homepage of Andries and Reinier referenced. How do we resolve this issue?

SSS108 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The references in the article are now to scholarly or media articles that are also published on exbaba. Andries 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter. You are promoting YOUR personal homepage by publishing these articles on your site. The references in question were NOT originally published on your site. You need to remove the links as per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You set the standard, now follow it.

SSS108 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot take this ridiculous suggestion seriously. Andries 01:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can. You happen to be promoting YOUR personal homepage by publishing all these references on YOUR site. You just said that promoting homepages violates wikipedia's guidelines. You are indirectly promoting your homepage. Therefore, you need to remove the links. Otherwise, my links are going back up. Unless of course, I publish the SAME references on MY site and remove your links and substitute them with mine? How does that sound to you?

SSS108 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

well, in that case I would say, neutral references e.g. to the BBC are preferrably as long as they are easily accessible to the reader. Andries 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why are you continually flip-flopping about the neutrality of the BBC? You already made the case (on this same talk page) that the BBC was favorably inclined towards Anti-Sai Activists!

Now you are claiming they are "neutral"! Make up your mind. So your next task is to remove links to your personal homepage and to remove the links to personal homepages on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page. What are you waiting for? Why aren't you rushing to remedy the violations to Misplaced Pages's Guidelines on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article?

SSS108 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

the BBC may or may not be neutral, but they are noteworthy

Really, wikipedia lays down very good guidelines, which both sides can follow. Joe, I'm happy for someone else to sum up your views, providing that person can show lack of bias.

I would also suggest the main pro and anti SSB links be moved to the Allegations page, the rest deleted. Misplaced Pages isnt a link directory, so no need to have long lists of links. This was decided before but the links just crept back.

A possible solution to the current war is to find some editors who Andries and Joe are both happy with, and get them to edit the controversial aspects of this page. M Alan Kazlev 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best solution is to merge the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba back into this article. See Misplaced Pages:POV fork. I am not sure yet. Andries 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You can attempt that, but to do so will need to reduce the size extensively. The article can neither exceed the 32K limit, nor overwhelm the article itself. IMO, that will be extremely difficult giving the contentious nature of the subject and the passion of the editors involved. A previous proposal was to summarize the criticism section in this article and do a split fork into the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba article. That, at least would be more in the realm of possibility and is not a POV fork, but a split fork, and 100% compatible with policy. Note that a POV fork is one in which articles are split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. That is not the case here, ad the proposal is to summarize here and split the rest to another article. Read: Content forking: Summary style articles ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, just as long as you remove homepage links, including yours (ExBaba), Brian Steel's, Lionel Fernandez (at SaiGuru.net) and Robert Priddy's. Otherwise, I will duplicate half of the references to my site and link them on this Misplaced Pages article. Of course, these referenced pages are going to contain links that go back to my homepage and other main pages, just like YOURS do on your homepage. Fair-Is-Fair.

SSS108 02:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Allegations section with Allegations page

I suggest that the bulk of the "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" section be merged with the Allegations against SSB page. The current page can then have a summary, say a few paragraphs or however long it needs to be, which summarises both allegations against SSB, the responses by devotees, and the counter-response by ex-devotees (and if you wnat very briefly the counter-counter response, though obviously this can go on forever)

Also, this current talk page is much too long - how about archiving it and starting a new one? M Alan Kazlev 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. That was exactly my proposal above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have listed this article at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion It seems that in spite of extensive discussions here, Thaumaturgic and SSS108 and I are not coming a millimeter closer. Andries 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You have already third opinions from M Alan Kazlev and from me. But I agree that more editors taing a look would be benefital. This article is in shambles, reading more as a pamphlet than a bioagraphy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I followed most of your suggestions but my edits get reverted. However I cannot expand the biographical part because I do not have reputable sources for that part. Andries 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Andries, when it comes to contradictions and inaccuracies, you want to cite LIMF as reputable, but when it comes to other parts to SSB's biography, you toss out LIMF and say you do not have reputable sources. Another fine example of your double-standards.

SSS108 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An Opinion

This is what I propose: That the Pro/Anti Viewpoints be merged into a single paragraph with a link going to the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page. All controversy and differences of opinion should be expressed on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba". I suggest the following paragraph and that we work on it to NEUTRALLY represent both sides without trying to defend and extrapolate on each and every single detail. I will then move the "Devotees and Proponents" section to the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" and we can hash out our differences there:

In recent years, especialy the year 2000, various allegations of sexual misconduct have been leveled against Sathya Sai Baba by former followers who were alleged victims. None of the alleged victims, however, have filed court cases against the Guru in India. These allegations gained wide exposure with the production of a BBC documentary, entitled "Secret Swami", and a SBS Danish programme, entitled "Seduced by Sai Baba." Sathya Sai Baba's materializations and miracles have been explained as trickery, magic, and deception by critics and skeptics. Concern has also been raised about Police Shooting that occurred in the Guru's residence in 1993, in which 2 of the Guru's aides were murdered by 4 assailants, who were also said to be devotees. The 4 assailants were shot to death by the police in what the police claimed was self defence. Inconsistencies in various official reports led critics and some members of the media to question the events that transpired that night. In face of these allegations and criticism, the Indian Guru maintains a large and international following. The Organization that represents the Sathya Sai Movement has not released any formal statements regarding these matters.

It seems to me that the paragraph should fairly and neutrally cover the main allegations against SSB. The only point that is not really discussed is about his teachings, but that is a matter of personal opinion, especially when the controversy surrounding SSB's teaching are taken from English translations and not from the original Telugu Discourses. Of course, if someone wants to add a sentence about the controversy surrounding SSB's teaching, then adding the comment I just made about English Translations vs. the Original Telugu Discourses can be included.

What do you think?

SSS108 00:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

that description is factually incorrect. Notable published accusations have been levelled at least since the year 1976 (e.g. Brooke & Narasimhaiah). The only difference is that all the accusations have been collected since the year 2000 and were widely reported then by the media. Andries 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How about then

Beginning in 1976, with claims by Tal Brooke, Narasimhaiah, and others, but much more widely reported from 2000 onwards, various allegations of sexual misconduct- (etc)

M Alan Kazlev 02:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and since 1976 (mid 1980's if you accept the notable authority of India Today) no one has even attempted to file a court case against SSB. Not even one single person! Barry Pittard offered these victims FREE "world class legal resources" and no one has come forward to utilize these services. No one! Zero. Zilch.

SSS108 07:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

untrue, Jens Sethi complained to the police in Munich. Andries 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Moreno specifically said "no one has attempted to file a court case against SSB". Jens Sethi did not file a court case. He supposedly filed a complaint. There is a difference between a complaint and a court case, Andries. So Moreno is correct. Thaumaturgic 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jens Sethi claimed he did. He has not forwarded his alleged complaint to anyone. Neither you or anyone else has ever seen his complaint. You are relying on second-hand information from the India Today article, which contradicted your earlier assertion about Brooke publishing his account in 1976 (India Today said Brooke published his book in the mid 1980's). More importantly, Sethi has NOT filed a complaint against SSB in India. As a matter of fact, he has not even tried despite being offered FREE "world class legal resources". Anyone who reads Sethi's testimony can see that something is seriously wrong: Reference Which is probably why nothing ever came from it.

SSS108 16:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

India Today is considered a reliable source in Misplaced Pages so it can be stated as fact. Andries 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Premanand's Atheist Status is NOT relevant

I'm sorry, but I find the "also an atheist" comment regarding Basava Premanand definetly NOT relevant to the discussion at hand, and also think that it's implications (for instance, that someone's faith or lack of faith should automatically be considered a sign of bias in religious discussions) are rather insulting.

Basava Premanand is a self-professed Atheist. He has publicly taken a stand against Gurus and Religious Figures (past and present) and uses his arguments against them to support his Atheistic beliefs. If Premanand does not have a problem with boldly professing his Atheism, I see no reason why others should have problem with it.

SSS108 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a self-professed atheist. I have absolutely no problem with "boldly professing" my atheism, and see no reason why others should have a problem with it, depending, of course, on the context where such labelling takes place. I try to believe that an atheist's opinion on any topic, including religion, should be judged on its own merits, not on his or her lack of faith. An atheist can say and do a lot of bulshit, can have a hidden agenda, can be irrationally biased regarding a certain topic, etc., just like anyone else - this is simply not determined by his or her atheism, unlike the comment in question seemed to imply.

Maprieto 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If a notable atheist makes a negative comment about religion, it would be OK to state his/her atheism in the article. That would be not appropriate if the article was on music, for example. An analogy would be a notable source for the article on Communism. A person can be described as anti-communist in that article if he/she is notable for that specific reason. The notability of this Basava Premanad seems to be related to his skepticism and atheism, and as such it woul be appropriate to mention it, not in a derogatory manner of course. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Premanand is also (and may be mainly) notable because of his life-long campaign against SSB. He even appeared on Dutch TV in the early 1990s to talk about SSB. Andries 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. His own article in Misplaced Pages states that he is is "an eminent skeptic and rationalist". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer not to have mentioned that Basava Premanand is an atheist in this article (outside of Misplaced Pages, online apologists are waging a smear campaign on the critics and make many ad hominem attacks ) but it is a minor thing when compared to the several problems with this article and its editing behavior

1. citing extensively from non-notable homepages
2. removals of references to reputable sources and additions upon reverts. Please do not do this. Please restore references to reputable sources and additions
3. the lack of solid biographical info in this article that describes the non-controversial aspects of SSB (this is due to lack of reputable sources)

Andries 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Premanand's atheistic beliefs are relevant to his views on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries just wants to suppress this fact from the readers. First Andries said that personal homepages violate Misplaced Pages Guidelines, but he refused to remove his own personal home page, and the homepages to other Sai Antagonistic sites. Now, Andries is changing tactics and saying that one cannot cite from non-notable homepages. All of the notable homepages and notable sources, that Andries say qualify for this article, exclusively support the Sai Antagonistic point of view and conveniently eliminate all other point of views. Andries extensively cited his personal home page from his Netherlands exbaba site. He extensively cited the personal homepage of other opposing sites as well. Anyone can see the many links he added that go to the personal homepages of critics. However, when I do it, Andries wants to eliminate Moreno's homepage completely. Andries also contradicts himself about Sathya Sai Baba's biography. On this talk page, under "pending tasks", Andries said, "The book Love is My Form (that I have not read) is, I heard, the best researched biography on SSB and used by Alexandera Nagel for her articles. The offical "biography" by Kasturi and several unofficial biographies are hagiographies and not very useful for providing facts in this article." Andries does not want to include the positive information in this book because he is now arguing that all the positive stuff is "controversial". That should not matter. As Andries said before, since the Love Is My Form biography is "the best researched biography" and is notable, its contents can be stated as a fact. If this book is not reputable and is non-notable, then the references from it should be removed. As Moreno rightly pointed out, Andries is incapable of neutrality. Thaumaturgic 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic, you misunderstood me with regards to homepages. All opinions and information that is only sourced from homepages and that is nowhere else favorably cited or quoted has according to the official policy no place in Misplaced Pages. In contrast, it is basically okay to link to the transcript of the BCC documentary on either the exbaba website or Moreno's homepage, but to avoid conflict, I think it is better to link to he BBC if they have the whole transcript online. Andries 20:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting Fresh

How about we stop all the above arguing, and just write the article(s) according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Also, there is one very important thing which seems to have been lost in the pages and pages of arguing. The role of Misplaced Pages is not to prove the guilt or innocence of a controversial guru. It is simply to report what notable sources from both or all sides say, without making dogmatic statements of its own. The wikipedia guidelines give very clear and straightforward instructions on how this can be done.

Andries, Joe, Thaumaturgic, and whoever else wants to contribute, and is familiar with all the details (which unfortunately I aren't), can therefore write up the Sai Baba page (and any other pages required) - and Jossi and I can moderate.

M Alan Kazlev 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us start with removing all contents references to and statements referenced and supported only by non-notable homepages, such as Gerald Joe Moreno's homepage. That is clearly the most blatant violation of the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in the current version. Andries 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

This whole article is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages content guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree and cannot understand this. Can you please be more specific? Andries 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that this is a very good article, but I compared it last Monday with the articles about SSB in several encyclopedias and books about NRMs and cults and then the Misplaced Pages article (even this flawed version) is much better and much more specific than entries there. And, since you insist so much on references, this article is also far better referenced to reputable sources than the entries there. I have not read any information there that can be used to improve this article. Andries 20:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

Let Andries clean up his section first before he attempts to clean up other sections whose views he openly dislikes and disproves of.

SSS108 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "his" or "mine" section in any Misplaced Pages article. Why do you object to dealing with a clearly identified blatant violation of wikipedia policy first? If we wait until the rest of article is perfect then your blatant violation of Misplaced Pages will never will be dealt with. Is that what you are hoping for? To what sentences do you object in the criticism section? Andries 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

First clean up the Critics POV before you attempt to remove the Proponents POV. You must step up to the plate and apply the same standards to the Critics POV that you attempt to apply on the Proponents POV.

You must remove ALL personal home pages, including your own. References do NOT require links. Therefore, you should provide references to the original sources without attempting to promote your home page and the home pages of Anti-Sai Activists. You also need to remove non-notable critics and references made to them.

You, Andries, have TWO pages for the Critics POV. One on this Main Page and one under Allegations Against SSB (which has been up since July 2004, without objection). Until you apply your standards on the Critics POV, you will be seen as being duplicitous and biased. A perception you can't seem to shake, even among other editors.

SSS108 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This misunderstanding keeps coming up again. What I meant and mean to say is that references must be sourced to reputable sources and if the reputable sources are easily accessible on e.g exbaba (which is not a homepage, but the website of the Dutch ex-followers of SSB) then I link to the http://www.exbaba.com website. Online references are preferrable to just naming the article and date. What I do is, I believe, perfectly in correspondence with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. Andries 22:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All the critics are either mentioned in media articles or cited or quoted scholarly articles. There is one person named in this article who is neither mentioned in the media nor in scholarly literature and that is Gerald Joe Moreno who keeps quoting from his homepage in blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Andries 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries: why, in addition to the majority of the text of this article, is there an entire seperate article devoted to criticizing SSB? — goethean ॐ 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

because I created it and it has not been deleted (yet). Andries 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And this is in accordance with your typically high standards of fairness and appropriateness? Please elaborate. — goethean ॐ 23:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, many thanks for your unexepected compliments. Recent media and scholarly articles have been highly critical about SSB. The set of articles on SSB reflects this as per Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy. Andries 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we to assume that we should take your word for the fact that media criticism of SSB outnumbers other media discussion of SSB about 5 to one, as it does in the Misplaced Pages articles on SSB? — goethean ॐ 23:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On the internet, the situation appears to be the opposite. — goethean ॐ 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the exact ratio, but it is a fact (that you can verifiy to a great degree if you do a little effort) that so called reputable sources like the Times, Salon.com, The Free university of Amsterdam (Alexandra Nagel), BBC world Service, Danish Radio, De Volkskrant, Trouw have extensively treated the negative aspects of SSB and very little on the positive. One of the reason for this is, of course, that these media have no access to reliable biographical data about him. And yes, the ratio may be 5 to 1. Positive appraisals by devotees and adherents do not count for a majority. Scholarly articles and mainstream media articles do count. Andries 23:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, when I look at your flawed google test because of stated reasons then I see many, many highly critical websites.

Andries, why don't you create a list of critical websites and I will create a list of Pro-Sai Websites and then we can make a comparison? First, try to out do SaiBabaLinks.org.

SSS108 23:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Websites do not count, because a majority in Misplaced Pages is not formed by the number of adherents. I do agree with creating a list of recent articles in reputable sources and check how much criticisms these contain as a guideline for this article. Andries 00:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries 23:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have favorably quoted the arch enemy of SSB, Basava Premanand. Premanand also appeared on Dutch TV in the early 1990s to talk about SSB after the IKON and NOS had shown positive TV documentaries about the guru. But lately it 90% critical here. Andries 23:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

With regards to majority/minority positiion, in the USA where he is not as popular as in the UK or Western Europe, there was only one mainstream article, that is the article in salon.com by Michelle Goldberg which was extremely critical (and somewhat unfairly critical, in my view). That makes a 100% majority for the USA. Andries 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your website is as much a "personal homepage" as is mine. My website is not about me. It does not discuss my life, personal history or hobbies. It is specific to the the Proponents POV. It doesn't matter what is "preferable". Your linking to your personal home page solicits your POV and the POV's of Anti-Sai Activists. You are specifically trying to remove the Devotees and Proponents POV, conveniently leaving your POV intact with links that exclusively promote the Anti-Sai POV! You were/are the webmaster for your personal homepage for over three years: Reference Trying to change tactics now is a little bit too late. You have already been caught red-handed.

SSS108 22:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is easier for the reader and better for the article if the references are on line available and linked to in this article. This is explicitly described as preferrable in the guidelines and policies, though I forgot where exactly. Andries 22:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What strikes as particularly wrong in this version is the fact that statements of opinions (not concrete accusations, I mean) of both critics and propopnents precede the measures by governments. That is far more important than just opinions. Andries 23:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee Andries, that is why there are links to my website. To make it easier for others to read information that supports the Devotees and Proponents POV! If you want to solicit your homepage, then my homepage is staying. It's that simple. Either link to the reference directly or provide references without links. There is your answer. You don't want to do this because...you are trying to promote your Anti-Sai POV through your personal Anti-Sai website.

SSS108 23:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand exactly what you mean, but again, contents only sourced by your homepage is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policies and will be removed. Andries 23:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I will duplicate ALL your references onto my site and we can link to them that way. How does that sound to you?

SSS108 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you then also remove all contents only sourced to your homepage then at least the article improves greatly. I have less problems with that then your blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policies. But of course, it is better to link to the transcript at the BBC's website instead of exbaba or Moreno's website to avoid conflict between us. Andries 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Andries, because on your site, the references all source back to your homepage! I guess the current references, that link to your website, are all violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines afterall! You just shot yourself in the foot again.

However, I agree. I will duplicate all the references on my site without providing a link to my main page or any other Pro-Sai Site.

Now, please provide me with a list to all the notable references you intend to use in the article. I suggest we do not edit the article until the pages are complete and you view the references and agree to them.

SSS108 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why we have to follow such a tedious procedure when it takes only 10 seconds to remove the blatant violations of Misplaced Pages policies from this article. Andries 00:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot change exbaba easily because I am not the webmaster. Andries 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the "blatant violations" are being perpetrated by you also. You are referencing your personal homepage.

You have to make a list of notable references anyway. It shouldn't take me that long to duplicate the necessary information. The exbaba domain is registered under your name, therefore, you are the webmaster. The "technical" webmaster is Reinier.

SSS108 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all contents only sourced by homepages. Where is now the blatant violation of Misplaced Pages that I committed or endorse? Andries 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the references you cite go directly to your personal homepage. You are removing the homepages of those whose names are specifically associated their homepages. You are continuing to cite your homepage and solicit the content on it. There is your "blatant violation", out of your own mouth. Remove your homepage links and the homepage links to Fernandez (saiguru.net) and other Anti-Sai Activists. Until you do that, you are violating Misplaced Pages's Guidelines. You said it.

SSS108 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

no, that is not a blatant violation. That is completely following wikipedia policy. Where are the guidelines that say so? Can somebody please explain the policy to Gerald Joe Moreno, because he really does not understand it. Andries 01:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about contents only sourced to homepages. It is perfectly okay to refer to the transcript of the BBC on exbaba (or on the BBC). It is not okay to quote Gerald Joe Moreno's personal opinions as voiced on his homepage here extensively. The differnence is that the opinion of the BBC does count and Moreno's opinion does not count. Andries 01:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do personal homepages violate Misplaced Pages Guidelines? Yes or no? If yes, WHY do you continue to cite your personal homepage and remove other's personal homepages? If no, the debate is moot. Remove all references to YOUR personal homepage. Fair is fair.

SSS108 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If I copied on my homepage a BBC article then linking to my homepage as a reference is basically okay (though linkin to the BBC would be better). It is not okay to quote extensively from my homepage my personal opinions about e.g. special relativity which would be a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy (with a few exceptions). Andries 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You deserve to be blocked for your repeated blatant violations of Misplaced Pages policies. Andries 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But all your reference pages load back into your frames site and lock the viewer in your site (you can't use the back button). You are promoting your home page. Again, you need to reference the articles from their source or without links. There is your answer. You are soliciting your home page through the references you copied onto it. Give me a list and I will copy the references to my site and we can link to them that way. Why are you afraid to do this? Is it possibly because you know that you promoting your viewpoints by using your personal home page?

SSS108 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the links to BBC transcript on exbaba to the BBC transcript on the BBC website. Feel free to do so, but do not make it difficult for the readers to read the references. Andries 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Andries is now threatening me by sending me private messages. This is what he sent me:

If you continue to break blatantly violating wikipedia policy Misplaced Pages:verifiability on Sathya Sai Baba then I may start a Misplaced Pages:request for comment against you. Andries 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you deserve it. How can anyone remain so ignorant and persistently unreasonable. Andries 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I could ask the same question of you.

SSS108 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask others e.g. on the Misplaced Pages:village pump (policy) who is right in this case. Or shall I do that? Andries 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, give me a list of references and I will duplicate them on my site. Why are you not working on this? You are simply reverting the article over and over again. Remove your homepage if you want to remove homepages. Otherwise, keep quiet.

SSS108 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want. References are listed in the article. Andries 01:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you have problems understanding English? The references listed go directly to your personal home page. How can I make this any more clear to you? Either link the references to their actual source, or don't provide a link. You are unfairly exploiting the process to solicit your POV through the referenced links.

SSS108 01:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do the policies say that this has to be so? I cannot find such a policy. There is no such policy, but you can propose one if you want. I think that your demands even break the guideline of providing easily accessible references. Andries 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (amended)

As I understand it, wikipedia operates, or is supposed to operate, from a neutral point of view. For Andries to link the references to his Sai Antagonistic website does not qualify as a neutral point of view, because 1) the references were not originally published on his site and 2) his site is openly antagonistic towards Sathya Sai Baba. It seems Andries has found a way to cite references, shove his point of view and violate wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines all at the same time. Thaumaturgic 01:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not break any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline in this, but feel free to replace the links to exbaba to links to e.g. the BBC or India Today, provided that they remain accessible to the readers. That is, I have to admit, preferrable. It has never been wikipedia goal to correct media bias or scholarly bias. Andries 01:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLEASE REFER TO A GUIDELINE OR POLICY THAT STATES THAT WHAT I DO IS INCORRECT BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS AGAIN AND AGAIN? I HAVE DONE SO IN THE CASE OF MORENO QUOTING HIMSELF. SEE Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. THANKS. Andries 01:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you sound very hostile. I suggest that there is a consensus here before you go around deleting the entire Devotees and Proponents section. I am sure you think you are right, but as stated before, we need other moderators to weigh in. If you want to eliminate all the homepages from the Sai Antagonistic viewpoint, go right ahead. Just don't be deleting our point of view without direction from someone who is neutral. Thaumaturgic 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did remove all contents only sourced by homepages, both critical contents and apologist contents, as per Misplaced Pages policy Misplaced Pages:verifiability, but I keep getting reverted without any justification that refers to Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. Andries 11:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please restore references after a revert

Thaumaturgic and others, please restore references after a revert. References have repeatedly been removed in revert wars. I have no intention to do all the work. Next time I may simply give a revert to a better referenced version, regardless if the revert is from a version that is better in other respects. Andries 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed Tag

I suggest a "neutrality disputed" tag be placed at the top on the Main Page of the SSB Misplaced Pages Article, just as it is done for the Shirdi Sai Baba page. I'm surprised it has not been done so far.

SSS108 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This is getting out of hand. Reverting each other edits will get you nowhere fast. Article will be protected until you come to an agreement on how to proceed. When you are ready to proceed, place a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP. Have a nice weekend.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case. Gerald Joe Moreno keeps quoting himself extensively from his homepage that is cited neither by the media nor by scholarly articles. If that is not a violation of Misplaced Pages:verifiability then nothing is. Andries 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Alo, Jossi, I am still hoping for an answer to my question what other blatant violations of Misplaced Pages policies are made in this article, as you wrote before. Andries 11:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, at least get the facts right. In cooperation with Thaumaturgic, we submitted one paragraph for the Devotees & Proponents POV. You were the one who began dissecting that paragraph, adding more and more of your POV, trying to dilute and alter the direct and concise nature of that one paragraph. Then YOU began attributing the quotes to me (see link below), although the statements are factual and are not dependent on my POV. Then you began referencing each and every little point, and the same thing was done for the Devotees & Proponents section. That is why there are all these references to me and my site: You were the one who began attributing them to me. After doing this, now you claim it is violating Misplaced Pages guidelines. The original one paragraph was:

Devotees and Proponents of Sathya Sai Baba remain doubtful about ex-devotee and critic's claims. The sexual abuse allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are made despite no court cases ever being filed, first-hand, in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized free, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not even one single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published on the internet). The petition signatures have never been independently verified. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. Devotees and Proponents believe that antagonists to the Guru willfully misrepresent and suppress facts about Sathya Sai Baba, which has been documented on the internet. Consequently, devotees and proponents have valid doubts about the claims and allegations made against the Indian Guru. First Post by Thaumaturgic

Andries attributing all the viewpoints to me.

Of course, the paragraph just cited does not do justice to the Devotees and Proponents POV. But this was the ONE paragraph that was added, to which Andries kept undermining with his edits and attributions. People can trace the course of events from the links just cited.

SSS108 12:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I had to attribute them to somebody, because according to Misplaced Pages policies, opinions have to be attributed. A good example of writing about the view of devotees and proponents is the paragraph quoting Bill Aitken (traveller) in the Week. That paragraph follows, I think, perfectly Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please try to find other media rebuttals by devotees and proponents instead of quoting yourself extensively in this article. I mean, would it be appropriate if I extensively quoted my story about SSB extensively in the article that has not been published by mainstream media? Clearly not. In contrast, it could possibly be okay to quote from my personal TV performance with regards to SSB. Andries 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from wikipedia:NPOV that states that views have to be attributed. "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Misplaced Pages. They are not re-enacted." In this case, attributing statements only revealed the fact that those statements are only sourced from a non-notable homepage. Andries 12:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The views you attributed to me are not my own. They are self-evident facts. Now if you want to attribute them to me, then you shouldn't whine about my name being in the article.

It kind of goes like this: POV submitted → Andries does not like POV → Andries attributes POV to Moreno → Andries taps his fingers for several weeks → Andries Deletes POV because of attributions to Moreno.

You are hardly consistent, Andries. That's because you are continually seeking ways to undermine POV's that compromise your own.

SSS108 13:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all contents only sourced to homepages, both critical contents and apologist contents. Attribution to Moreno by me only revealed that contents was only sourcec to your homepage. I think this is perfectly in correspondence with the Misplaced Pages policies. Andries 13:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have to admit that it is reasonably to assume that your view that the evidence against SSB wrongdoing is insufficient is a view widely held among proponents, so I have no problem if this is stated as such and attributed to you as a prominent proponent of this view. Andries 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another excerpt that proves that attribution by me of opinions to Moreno was fully justified. (This is a guideline, not a policy though) Misplaced Pages:Cite_sources "The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research." Andries 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are promoting your personal homepage, your bias and your POV through the referenced links. Therefore your efforts to reference your POV pushes a bias that is frowned upon by Misplaced Pages. The answer is right in front of your nose, but you refuse to use it because it undermines your POV: References should be linked to actual sources or with no links. I have proof you claimed to the be webmaster for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, that opposes SSB: Reference. Now, however, you claim to be the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for this Anti-Sai Site. Either way, your involvement is obvious and indisputable.

First you argued that personal homepages violated Misplaced Pages guidelines. Once you realized that this argument undermined the links to YOUR Anti-Sai personal homepage, you are now arguing against "non-notable" personal homepages, etc. I can hardly wait to see you make your case for neutrality with all those references that go directly back to your Anti-Sai personal homepage or the personal homepage of Lionel Fernandez at SaiGuru.net or the personal homepage of Robert Priddy.

Even though you are supposedly a savvy Misplaced Pages Editor, you have referenced the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists for over 2 years. Just look at your article on Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba. That article has been there since July 2004 and it is JAM PACKED with personal homepages and you NEVER complained about it one bit! Now that there is a Devotees & Proponents POV, all of sudden, personal homepages are a violation of Misplaced Pages Guidelines. Even AFTER this admission, your REFUSE to remove the personal homepages on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" article!

You are biased and duplicitous to your core.

SSS108 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I had already admitted that I may have broken the policies of Misplaced Pages a bit in the past, but I have never broken it so blatantly as you. Andries 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And besides, I do try to follow the policies when people complain about my edits, unlike you. You are the first one to complain about the reference and links at Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. I will try to improve the article. Andries 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Having observed this discussion for more than a month, and given that the dispute is very much between two editors, I would suggest request mediation. Mediation us a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. Read Misplaced Pages:Mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem in mediation as long as there is prior agreement after all factions agree with the person volunteering as mediator that the decision of the mediator, whatever that will be will be respected. Andries 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation does not have an priori clause, or an apriori binding such as arbitration. Mediation is designed to assist two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest. If Andries, Thaumaturgic and SSS108 agree to mediation, I can place a request for mediation on your behalf. Please write agree or disagree after your name below.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Andries (talk · contribs)
• Thaumaturgic (talk · contribs)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs) Agree SSS108 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was aware that mediation does not have a binding effect, but it will probably take a lot of time and effort for the mediator and all other participants and hence I am unwilling to have the article mediated unless there is some strong indication or proof that the decisions of the mediator will be respected. Andries 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As meditation does not carry a pre-binding condition, what you are saying is that you disagreeing with mediation. In that case, please state it above, after your name. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I request is a promise in advance of all particiants that they will follow the decisions of the meditator. I mean, what sense does it have to do a lot of effort when there no indication at all that this will change something? Andries 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That is one issue that the mediator can address as the first order of business: set the level of expectations and get a sense from the parties about their willingness to compromise and agree to a desired outcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with mediation. I hope there is a good volunteer though. Andries 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the ignorance and lack of experience of contributors SSS108 and Thaumaturgic with Misplaced Pages in general and the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. They should study the policies and guidelines and contribute to other articles too before editing a controversial article such as this one. All of their relatively few contributions to Misplaced Pages are to Sathya Sai Baba. In contrast I have more than >10,000 edits in Misplaced Pages and am well aware of most policies and guidelines. I have the impression that they simply do not believe me when I write that their edits blatantly violate Misplaced Pages policies. And they oppose to edits without referring to any policy and guideline. Andries 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you are such an experienced, knowledgable and honest Misplaced Pages editor that you openly violated Misplaced Pages's Guidelines by referencing the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists, on the Main Article for Sathya Sai Baba, for over 2 YEARS.

Your article on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba was created in July 2004 and it is JAM PACKED with personal homepages that you NEVER objected to! Now, however, you are objecting to MY homepage, yet you continue to leave the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba article. Despite your hollow boasts on being knowledgable about Wikepedia Guidelines, you continue to violate their policy.

Practice before precept.

SSS108 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If Moreno is allowed to quote extensively from his homepage then I am also allowed to quote extensively from my future homepage. Exbaba is not my homepage, but the website of the former Dutch followers of SSB of which I am one of the members. Only a very small fraction of the exbaba website was authored by me. Andries 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Future homepage? You have a personal homepage right now at hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Now you might want to deny that this homepage is yours, but I have the proof it is yours Reference. You claimed, for over 3 years that you were the Webmaster, News and Contact for the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site. Now you are claiming to be the Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact for the site. You cannot distance yourself from the site when your involvement with it is fully documented!

Why doesn't it surprise me you have made over 10,000 edits?

SSS108 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do I distance myself from that website? Yes, I am affiliated with that website, but it is not my homepage though. Andries 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Exbaba has never been a website that is de facto or de jure used as soapbox for my personal opinions, unlike your website. Andries 17:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists