Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Archives
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 : Jan 04 - July 05 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2 : July 05 - Jan 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive3 : Jan 12 - Feb 02

User:BostonMA/Mediation This article is the subject of Wikipedia:mediation by user:BostonMA and a substantial amount of discussion about this article and other SSB articles is going on there. Partipants in the mediation are user:Andries versus user:Thaumaturgic and user:SSS108

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

New site format

A good step would be to start moving all references to the new site format. This will allow much easier editing and will enable us to check the vairous sources provided throughout the article. The format is very simple. Inline with the text, simply add

<ref>Author, name of reference, (year), page number, Publisher, ISBN <br />A quote from the sourve if needed, (pleasde keep it short and on purpose.</ref>.

This site format will automatically generate a properly numbered ref in the Reference section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary mediator has agreed to help

I do not know if I am allowed to post the link to the new page or not, but someone has volunteered to mediate between Andries, Moreno and myself. The person in question is not an official mediator, but has agreed to play the role of one. At least we can get another perspective. I agreed to have the person in question meditate. Thaumaturgic 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign accept or decline the offer for informal mediation by BostonMA (talk · contribs)

• Thaumaturgic (talk · contribs) I agree Thaumaturgic 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Andries (talk · contribs)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs) I agree: SSS108 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two editors have already accepted at a special page I have set up. --BostonMA 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry BostonMA... Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Not a problem :-) --BostonMA

---

Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom?

Andries, where you are getting the title, "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom"? I just had a discussion about the title being wrong and not only did you ignore it, you just edited the main article and changed the correct title "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom" to "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom". Where are the references to support that that is the correct title? Perhaps a picture will help: Reference

SSS108 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I got confused by your recent complaints here about the title. Andries 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the only function of this talk page is to make suggestions for improvement for this article. If you make complaints that are unrelated to the current version of this article then it is likely that people get confused. Please label off-topic remarks as such. Andries 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the comment was not "off topic". You referred to the incorrect title and I pointed it out. AlanK wrote a new section about my comment to you about the incorrect title. That is a huge section to misunderstand. At least you corrected it now. And by the way, Premanand's book is 800+ pages. Not 400.

SSS108 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Off-topic: Oh and by the way, before I get accused of deception again by Gerald Joe Moreno/SSS108, Lousewies van der Laan, the person who asked the question in the European Parliament, is my cousin. Andries 12:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for admitting that, Andries. Again, this simply goes to show how all these "warnings" and "discussions" from parliaments, etc. against SSB, are inextricably linked to Anti-Sai Activists. I think this is more than just coincidence.

SSS108 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

off topic, and what does this prove? Do you think that I would risk the political career of my cousin for nothing? Clearly, it is an indication of my sincerity, degree of conviction of the reliability of my sources, and concern about the seriousness of the matter. Andries 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

What are you waiting for?? BAN THEM

This article so 'not-encylopedia' and obviously very biased. Statements like

"Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics."

are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia should only state facts, not opinions. Then the section "stance by devotees" makes no sense whatsoever! And look at the section books written by saibaba. He is not even a writer! This obviously adds unnecessary text to scrolling. Plzzz I beg some wise people here to ban such religious zealots who misuse wikipedia for their own thing. reasonit

Hmm, I agree with the generalization that I had my doubts about. And I do not know whether SSB has really written the books that are claimed so. I personally have strong doubts, but normally we assume that the claimed author is the real author unless there is proof otherwise. Andries 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasonit, the "religious zealot" you want banned happens to be Andries Krugers Dagneaux, who happens to be an Anti-Sai Activist. Andries is the "religious zealot" who added that section: Reference So don't blame devotees. I suggest you research the matter before casting blame.

Reasonit, where are your references that SSB did not write those books? As you said, Wikipedia should only state facts, not personal opinions. So where are your facts?

SSS108 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, but Sai Baba has written at LEAST three books that I know of and they are listed on amazon.com. In addition to that, his articles are consistently published in Indian papers. I guess we will have to list his books as references.Freelanceresearch 11:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many booka he has written, the fact is writing the names of all the books he has written is completely pointless(since he isnot a writer professionally). Check articles on other authors, even there the name of every book has not been written Vikram_Seth And i never said he didn't write these books. SSS108, read properly I never pointed any particular person to be banned, just ppl like you. Reasonit 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasonit, I happen to agree with you about removing the list of books. Actually, Andries was the person who added the list of books. Thaumatugic removed the list and provided a link to the Vahini series and this was not approved by Andries. Again, a devotee was not responsible for adding the list. An Anti-Sai Activist was [1] I am fully aware you never pointed out a particular person. I never claimed you did. You said that the "religious zealot" who wrote: ""Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics" should be banned. As I rightly pointed out, it was not written by a "religious zealot". All the things you are complaining about, and attributing to devotees or religious people, are not being done by them. They are being done by Andries, a skeptic of SSB. So place the blame where it rightly goes. SSS108 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references

"The young Sathya was a natural vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and his compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly." SS108, can you please provide references for this, not references from hagiographical material. Besides, I do not think this belongs in the summary. Andries 07:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Material from what you call a hagiography could be included, provided that the article does not become a hagiography in itself. The sentence above can easly be made NPOV as follows:

According to XYZ, in the book ABCDE, Baba in his youth, "was a natural vegetarian and was known for his aversion to animal cruelty and his compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly."

The use of quotes will clearly position this a an descriptive opinion of the author, rather than a fact. Just provide the sources and attribute it fully. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossie. It is being taken from the outline in Sathyam Sivam Sundaram by N. Kasturi and more specifically from Howard Murphet's book, Man of Miracles. Using Andries standard, we could never write a biography because no one else, beside devotees, have attempted to write a biography. The LIMF writers are also devotees and also wrote a hagiography. I'll work on it more today.

SSS108 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi and SS108, I do not oppose using Kasturi, as long as it is made very clear that this is from Kasturi's hagiography and separated from the serious biography. Using Kasturi for the biography sharply contradicts Jossi's insistence on using reputable sources. Jossi can you please clarify what I see as your contradictory position on this? Andries 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then what sources do you recommend for the biography?

SSS108 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. There are no reputable sources and may be that is why the biography should stay short. Andries 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, can you define "reputable"?

SSS108 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is not a problem in quoting published sources. Cite and quote, but make sure that it is attributed. And as I have said before, there are quite a number of books that mention this person (not biographies) that can be used to put together a decent bio section. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I found an article about Sathya Sai Baba published in "Religions Of The World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia Of Beliefs And Practices" by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann and they cite Kasturi and Sandweiss as references. If this 4 volume Encyclopedia of Religions cites Kasturi and Sandweiss, I see no reason why this article can't cite them as well.

SSS108 21:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem to cite Kasturi in the beliefs and practices section, but a hagiography can never serve as a source to a serious biography. Andries

Andries, why didn't you answer my previous question? Can you define "reputable"?

SSS108 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

well, I cannot really define reputable. A source that has a good reputation, is what it means, I guess, but that is somewhat subjective and difficult to prove. Andries 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem, Andries. You make demands for sources being "reputable", but you cannot even define it. How can anyone cite "reputable" sources when your definition seems to change with the POV being expressed?

SSS108 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography Section

I suggest we start a new section about SSB's bibliography (on the main article) and attribute the entire section to Kasturi's Hagiography. It is undeniable that Kasturi is a reputable reference (as he has been cited in a Religion Encyclopedia and other college references). This would provide a solution to writing a bibliography and reconciling it with Andries demand of distinguishing the material as being taken from a hagiography. So, does anyone object before I invest the time and effort?

SSS108 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I admit that Kasturi is a reputable reference for the beliefs and practices section, not for the biography, because Kasturi's hagiography is authorized material about SSB. Apart from that I do not understand your proposal.Andries 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give an example? I do not understand your proposal. Andries 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would this source not be considered for inclusion of biographical data? You could state that the works are a hagiography, if you have a reputable source that describes it as such, or if it is stated in the said book that it is such. Otherwise, I do not see a problem. If there are other sources that challenge some of the biographical data in that book, you can describe these as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I continue to hold the opinion, as I already stated, that using hagiographical material for a biography violates the spirit of the Wikipedia policies. Andries 18:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, why limit Kasturi to "beliefs and practices", when Kasturi's books are not about "beliefs and practices"? Kasturi's writings are about SSB's life, of which SSB's teaching are a part. If a Religion Encyclopedia and college references can cite Kasturi in relation to SSB's biography, I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot. SSS108 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sai Baba in the media

i've added an external link related to discussions in the media about Sathya Sai Baba, his organisations and followers in the media section. It turned out that when i visited that page related to that external link, there has been considerable number of media reports on Sai Baba, Sathya Sai organisation's activities etc., than what was mentioned in the wikipedia page. If anybody would be interested in connecting those articles to the wikipedia page, that would add more relevant content to the wikipedia page.

Thanks

Godman stated as fact

I think that the arcicle should state as fact that SSB is a godman for the following reasons

1. Two sources state so. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2. One source gives only one example i.e. SSB Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

3. The assertions are not contradicted by any notable source. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

4. SSB fits all the characteristic of a godman as described in that article. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, it is better to say "described as a godman". Otherwise you are stating it is a fact, when it is only the opinion of those that call him such, in particluar when godman is a colloquialism. See Godman. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

doesn't SSB often say in his talks that he is God? I remeber when i was a devotee (well, in a manner of speaking, i was never a full-on devotee) it was common knowledge that he was (considered to be) an avatar. e.g. the Howard Murphett books, which i read (and which influenced me to travel to India to see SSB). I know SSB was often quoted as saying "I am God and you are two, but you don't know it." (or something along those lines). Hasn't he also says that he is Shiva and Shakti, that he is Krishna reincarnated, etc? I am not a SSB scholar, but surely it wouldnt be hard to find an actual quote from SSB where he proclaims that he is an avatar. M Alan Kazlev 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is already in the article and if it is not by accident then it is true that it is very easily added. Andries 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Boys?

Andries, where are your reputable sources published in notable media that SSB had sexual relation with boys? If the accounts are second hand or anonymous, they need to be stated as such.

Premanand's anonymous story is not reputable or published in notable media. Also, one needs to state how Premanand originally contended that the anonymous letter was written by a student and five years later, changed it to a father to an alleged student. Give all the facts.

Michelle Goldberg's bias was hidden from her article, but was divulged on your Anti-Sai site when she told Glen Meloy, in a personal letter: ""I apologize for not having the time to pursue every angle of the story, but I think the final piece (more than 2000 words longer than it was originally assigned) will bring much attention to your struggle. Thanks again for all your help." In reply, Glen Meloy said, "It has been a privilege to work with you and I hope the editors of Salon.com will consider allowing you to do a follow-up story on all the other leads and material that has been furnished to you." Therefore, Goldberg's hidden bias should be divulged.

Also, switching the links to SaiGuru.net is deceitful. The articles on SaiGuru.net were duplicated from your Anti-Sai Site. Changing the link from one Anti-Sai Site to another is ridiculous. Your Anti-Sai Site was the source for the material and was simply duplicated on SaiGuru.net. That's like having Lisa create a website, transferring my content to her site, linking to it and then saying it is okay because it is not on my site!

It is funny that you refuse to allow anyone to quote Kasturi relating to SSB's biography, although Kasturi is published in notable references, and yet you go around citing sources that have not been published in reputable media and see nothing wrong with that. SSS108 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I noticed you are heavily editing the article again. We have an opportunity to discuss our differences of opinion in mediation. Why are you not answering the relevant section about Premanand: Premanand As A Source? I think we should get the opinion of the mediator to resolve the issue instead of debating it among ourselves. What do you say? After all, you and I were actively seeking a mediator and a neutral opinion. Now that we have a mediator and a neutral opinion, you are delaying giving answers. If you have time to heavily edit the article, one would think you would have time to answer the mediation questions. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Indian Skeptic is a good source, the word "boys" is also sourced by Michelle Goldberg's 'Untouchable' article in salon.com Wikipedia says nowhere that only primary sources can be used. Secondaray such as salon.com are fine too. Andries 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Reverted. Goldberg used "boys" in relation to the claims that Anti-Sais made. She didn't document any cases of such and saying SSB abused "boys" when she didn't document it is factually incorrect. Either that or I add "undocumented, anonymous and unconfirmed accounts of SSB allegedly molesting boys". The choice is yours. I also gave you a couple of days to discuss it before I removed the text. We agreed in mediation to this. I would expect the same courtesy I extended to you. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

undocumented and unconfirmed according to whom? Not unconfirmed or undocumented accourding to Michelle Goldberg's article in salon.com Opinions have to be attributed according to the policy. I admit that you had discussed removing "boys" in the talk page, but I had referenced it and excluding salon.com as a source with the argument that it is a secondary source and not a primary source shows so much ignorance of the way Wikipedia works that I could not take it seriously. Please remember that it is the duty of editors to study the policies and guidelines, especially when editing the controversial articles. It is not my duty to teach you the basics of Wikipedia policies after I have shown you were to look. Andries 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Michelle Goldberg did not document any cases of boys being abused. She used that word as expressed by Anti-Sai Activists. Where are the confirmed and documented stories that Goldberg documented about "boys" being abused? I would like to see the references. And we have a mediation process going on. We can always discuss this in mediation. I am curious why you are trying to circumvent the mediation process and press on with your agenda? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, secondary sources are okay to use according to Wikipedia. And everybody with common sense and empathy can understand the reason for anonimity in this case. I followed all very clearly all Wikipedia policies (referencing and providing reputable sources) in my edit and I cannot see what there is left to meditate in this case. Andries 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Where did Goldberg document the abuse of "boys"? If the claims are anonymous, unconfirmed and unverifiable, they need to be stated as such (instead of stating it in a way that implies it is a confirmed fact). Goldberg never interviewed children or parents to children. She repeated anonymous, unconfirmed and unverifiable claims as made by Anti-Sai Activists. Period. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The accusations were never stated as fact. I do not see the problem. Glen Meloy and others showed her the evidence that she found convincing and she wrote boys. Andries 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did Goldberg say she saw the "evidence" and found it "convincing"? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

She did not, but I believe it, but is irrelevant. We are not seeking the truth it, but we report. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion does not make any sense. I can understand that there is a lot of gray area where mediation is useful, but in this particular dispute can be no doubt that the word "boys" is justified by reputable sources for which references are provided. And may be in this dispute and in this dispute only, I think that we can go directly to the Wikipedia:arbitration committee and bypass mediation. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you seeking to circumvent mediation? Why are you refusing to answer the questions about Premanand in mediation? Why are you spending so much time here and neglecting the mediation that you sought out so vigorously? SSS108 ^talk-email 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because mediation is only necessary and justified in case of doubt, problems about sources etc. In this case there can be no doubt: I followed all policies and what you do is simply disruption of the article and violation of Wikipedia policies. I have added a note to the mediation page about this dispute, not as a new subject to be mediated, but as a complaint about your behavior. Andries 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

View Discussion About Andries Complaint About SSS108's Behavior SSS108 ^talk-email 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt for you. There is plenty of doubt on my side. Which is why it should be mediated. I am still waiting for your responses about Premanand in mediation so we can move forward. You are holding up the process with your vacillating. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not holding up the process, because the inclusion of the word "boys" is backed up not just by Premanand, but also by Michelle Goldberg's salon.com]'s article. It is basically an unrelated dispute. Andries 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not backed up by Premanand. It is allegedly backed up by an anonymous source whom Premanand first claimed was a Sai Student. Five years later, Premanand arbitrarily changed the story and attributed the letter to a Parent of a Sai Student. This story has never been published in any reputable sources and you know it. My comment, about answering the mediation questions about Premanand, is a side issue. I would like to move forward with the mediation process and I do not know why you are refusing to answer the questions in medation so we can discuss the Betrayal Letter and the Salon.com Articles. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that any question are asked about salon.com I do not understand why the backlog in answering questions is related to this dispute. Andries 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other claims made in any of the SSB related articles which are based upon Indian Skeptic as a source? If so, please answer the remaining open questions on the mediation pages. --BostonMA 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no claims in any of the SSB related article based upon Indian Skeptic as a source with the possible exception of the study of SSB's miracles by Dr. Dale Beyerstein, but that study also appeared in a private publication and was referenced by Nagel in her 1994 article for the Free universtity of Amsterdam. Andries 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I gave you a misdirection. I would like you to respond to the open questions anyway. A number of the questions have applicability beyond the issue of Indian Skeptic and beyond Premanand as a source. Even the questions that are Indian Skeptic specific, I believe are important, as they will help to provide a point of reference, a point of comparison for determining where the threshold lies for a source to be reputable. (So please answer questions about Indian Skeptic even if you believe them to be moot.) It is my fault that the directions I gave were not what I actually wanted. --BostonMA 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, because once you answer the questions, we can move forward and discuss the Salon.com article. If you check the Reminders For Mediator page, you will see that I have included it in a list of questionable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

List of books by SSB?

It is true that I insisted on having the list of books by SSB included in this article. I think thought that it is common and standard to list the published works of a person. I may be mistaken in this. I admit that for most people this will be scroll down content, but this is supposed to be a reference article, so I thought and still think that this list is important. Any comments? Andries 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (amended)

We should do what Thaumaturgic originally did, and which Andries reverted: Keep the "Books by Sathya Sai Baba" section and provide the link to the Vahini series, instead of listing all the Vihini titles and providing no link to the Vahini series. Vahini Link SSS108 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is supposed to be a reference article and an end result of e.g. a google search. Andries 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A short list of the more prominent books should be sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, as you often say, the external links should be allowed for easier accessibility to sources, for readers. There is a link to the Sathya Sai Speaks series. There is a link to books listed on SaiBabaLinks.org. But instead of providing one more relevant link to the Vahini series, you insist on keeping a voluminous list that is not necessary and can easily be referenced for readers. It is amusing that you are now taking a stand against a "mere collection of links" when this was exactly what the article was when you had full control over it for 2 years. SSS108 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I never had the article under control and most of the many external links were added by others. Andries 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 430+ edits speak to the contrary of your claim that you did not control the article. You were the person who determined the content to the article (and still do). Also anyone can easily verify how you added an exorbitant number of links to Critics sites on the Allegations Against Sathya Sai Page: Reference You were the person who created this article. Despite adding all those links, and seeing nothing wrong in doing so, you now have newfound sensitivities for relevant links that go to the official Sathya Sai Baba Vahini page. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Check it better. It was not just me who added these many external links, but several contributors, mainly anons. Andries 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, maybe you should check it better. The very first time links were added (on the Allegations page), you added so many links to critics sites, it is unreal: Reference: Scroll down to view links This page is the very first edit when links were added and trace back directly to you. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But even if this is true what you wrote about what happened in the past (which I continue to deny) then what has this to do with improving the article now? This talk page should only discuss improving the current state of the article. Andries 15:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, there is no "even if this is true". It is true. The point being that when it comes to listing an opposing POV, you see no problem in citing as many links as it takes to Anti-Sai Sites. Once a link is proposed to be added to a site that you see as favoring SSB, all of sudden, you start making excuses and saying things like the "article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links". Several people have opposed such a long list of books on the article. Instead of adding one more relevant link, you are insisting on keeping the long list of books. This proposition is a discussion on improving the article. So far, you are the only person opposing adding the link. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some material suitable for the article?

Check this: http://www.the-week.com/25nov27/currentevents_article10.htm It is a quite recent article on "The Week" with many POVs from different protagonists. Hope it is useful as an example of NPOV material. It was the cover story for the November 2005 issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, material from that article was already cited and the link was also included in the "Media" links section. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Books

Under Other Books, there is a reference to Brian Steel's annotated biography. This is not a book. It should be removed. If it is a book, I'd like to see the ISBN number.

Also, how are we to deal with books that are listed in Selected books by his followers when they are now ex-devotees? It is misleading to list their books under a followers section when they are not followers. Specifically, I am objecting to the following:

Steel, Brian The Powers of Sathya Sai Baba (1999) ISBN 81-7646-080-X

Steel, Brian The Satya Sai Baba Compendium: A Guide to the First Seventy Years (Paperback) Weiser Books (February, 1997) ISBN 0877288844

Priddy, Robert “'Source of the Dream'” (1998) ISBN 1-57863-028-2

If others insist that these books be mentioned, then they should be referenced under Books by skeptics and critics with a note saying that although the books are favorable to SSB, the authors are now ex-devotees. Does this sound fair? SSS108 ^talk-email 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not sound fair at all. The books two by Steel and one by Priddy were written by then followers and should hence be listed there. I also disagree with you on the book list that Steel provided. We cannot list all books about SSB here, but Steel provided a near-exhaustive book list and I think that it is good replacement. Andries 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I knew a good edit would bring you out of hiding. SaiBabaLinks.org provides a exhaustive list with links (which Steel's page does not). It is deceptive to claim that the "annotated biography" is a book when it isn't. If you insist that the books just pointed out be left where they are at, I will add a note stating they are now ex-devotees and critics of SSB. Does that sound fair?

On a side issue, why are you not participating in the mediation? As far as I am aware, you have not responded to either the mediator's or my queries. You also said you were going to answer the questions the past weekend and did not. Why? If you are not going to participate in mediation, you need to let everyone know so we can take the next step. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)