Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

"Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha"

The sentence above is taken from the article. It is not appropriately marked as a quote (if that's what it is), nor is the source indicated. Therefore, a reader familiar with the punctuation conventions must come to the conclusion that the author of that particular passage is referring to him/herself. (A reader who is not familiar with punctuation will simply be confused as to WHO exactly is the "we" referred to.)

Please, correct the passage.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

The state of things here is a SHAME Was the ArbCom list of suggested sources influenced by malicious biased users, with great ability on spining? Is Wikipedia currently being used as theirs instrument?

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village.[citation needed]"

references

)

Non-reputable source references for deletion

I suggest that since the current Notes 7, 45 and 51 are sourced to 3 non-reputable sources run by the same person, the references (not the brief material) should be deleted. In trying to delete the reference to Note7, I messed up the code, for which I apologise, and so have just temporarily Undone my proposed change. However, I would like a more code-savvy person, preferably an Admin, to examine those three references and delete them if they agree with me.

While on this subject, technically, Notes 35 and 142 are referenced to an unofficial devotee source and, in my opinion, are not reputable either. (The material itself seems OK but needs a reputable reference.) Please examine these as well. Thank you. Ombudswiki (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

hey, i added additional sources where necessary.

(please note, #35 was exaclty the same discourse as in the Sathya Sai Speaks archives, considering accuracy and accounatbility)

what is note 142 now? as the source numbers have changed.

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the numbers have changed. You yourself (J929) have just added three new references! One of these is from a non-reputable devotee site: saibaba.ws. Please remove it and replace it with a reputable source.

Because of the changes you have made, the Note numbers of the sources I claim are unofficial and non-reputable are now:

7, 46 and 53. These link to 3 of the many similar sites connected to the same person, who was involved in protracted Wikipedia controversies over this article two or three years ago.

And Notes 36 and 145 for the 2 references to an unofficial devotee source similar to the one you yourself have just quoted.

Logically, these numbers will keep changing as you or others add or subtract references.

I repeat, since you had difficulty in understanding what I wrote, it is not the content I am disputing in most of these cases but the named source. Sathya Sai Baba's speeches, for example, can all be referred to via the official sssbpt (Books and Publications Trust) website or by reference to the printed volumes of Discourses. Ombudswiki (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have finally managed to delete non-reputable reference 7. The other two will follow when I figure out (or someone tells me) how to do it without upsetting the code. BTW, I have also noticed a few more non-reputable links to unofficial devotee sites that have been creeping into the article. More another day. Ombudswiki (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the numbers will, and did, change, so i asked. clearly list the source rather than the (changing) reference number "You yourself (J929) have just added three new references!" why are you restating it?
"I repeat, since you had difficulty in understanding what I wrote", considering its your 'opinion' ("However, I would like a more code-savvy person, preferably an Admin, to examine those three references and delete them if they agree with me), i wrote, "#35 was exactly the same discourse as in the Sathya Sai Speaks archives, considering accuracy and accounatbility".
"it is not the content I am disputing in most of these cases but the named source" ? if the context is good then the content is good, if the context is wrong then the content is wrong. This is wikipedia policy. In your opinion then, are you in conflict with wikipedia policy?
Co-operation doesnt entail agreement. Taking into account, no one has confirmed if the sources are indeed reliable or not, have you made any effort to co-operate with other editors as to remedy any 'potential' problems. it may be a good idea to wait until something more than your 'opinion' is secured. J929 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is quite simple.

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation

www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation

www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division)

www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony

www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos)

(Interestingly, www.saibaba.com and www.saibaba.org, promote Sai Baba of Shirdi and have no connection with the 5 sites named above.)

All official information can be obtained from these sites, which bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other sites (and there are huge numbers of them), however big and popular, are unofficial devotee sites and, while the largest of them often relay much of the official information to devotees, they also promote a lot of unofficial devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility.

It would avoid problems, therefore, to avoid referring in this article to any unofficial devotee sites. The three most viewed, all mentioned in this article, are: www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and the sometimes controversial and partisan sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com

To regularise the situation for this article and the several others about Sathya Sai Baba, attempts should now be made to convert current references to devotee sites to references to the 5 official sites. A singular proof of the disadvantages of devotee sites as citation sources is to be seen in Reference 6 of the very new Prema Sai Baba article. (See the Talk page there for a further comment.) Ombudswiki (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki,

Please begin the "attempt" "to convert current references" to "all official information". You are correct, "The situation is quite simple."

i'm more than happy to help you with the coding.J929 (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

J929, I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter but please consider what compliance with your request would entail for me. You are asking me to spend a great deal of time providing guarantees for points which others have added to the article. That is not my responsibility since I did not contribute the points in question. The necessary detective work should be carried out by those persons, or other editors (like yourself), who believe strongly that points at present referenced to unofficial devotee sources should remain in the article. My only inclination, in protecting this RS principle, would be to remove the references and any points which seemed inappropriate (as in the Prema Sai Baba article. Others might then wish to remove the (newly) unreferenced points themselves if official references were not found within a reasonable time frame. Ombudswiki (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions. nor is there any agreement among wikipedia administrators. the first step is to see if the sources are reliable or unreliable (other than your opinion).

i have twice offered to help with your 'edits' and twice have seen sarcastic and childish responses. you have offered nothing new to the article yet sit back in your armchair-anthropologic-style of editing.

"please consider what compliance with your request would entail for me." ?

J929 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions. I was shocked to read that. I would strongly suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, as you (and none of the editors or administrators I might add) have the right to dismiss the opinion of another editor, nor do they have to come to a "consensus" about the "validity" of another editors opinions. Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I note your reaction and wonder whether your implied dismissal of my several earlier detailed contributions of suggestions for further textual study on Sathya Sai Baba by editors (Love is My Form, etc.) means you are not interested in reading this missing material.

Following this hiatus, I once again offer for consideration by other editors and readers my posting (15 August, 05.41) on official and unofficial websites and other sources.

I also take this opportunity to reiterate my suggestion that non-RS references from this article and from Prema Sai Baba should be deleted. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the words 'false smear' for 'false smear campaigns' because the Asian Voice author did not lable the campaigns as such. Her article was contested and Al Rahm complained about the libel against him in it, but the editors refused to allow any comment. This is shown from the following materialsd which were refused, which refute soundly the imaginative and baseless reports that were posted there. Ashok Bhagani promised that the BBC documentary would not stand, but his complaints to the BBC weere rejected without him litigating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEdits (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• First the quote is from the article published in the "The Pioneer" and not from the "Asian Voice" article. And also the reference you had used http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk - is one of those negative attack sites banned by the second arbitration and cannot be used anywhere as a valid reference for this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"All around the world" is a too general statement. I have substituted "various parts of the world". Kletchby (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"failed smear" is removed from "failed smear campaigns" because it is a tendentious characterisation by the author of this edit of what The Pioneer actually wrote. It referred to a specific campaign within India. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEdits (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits, The word "Failed Smear Campaign" clearly summarizes what the Pioneer article is talking about. Its very clear that you are trying to push your Point of View and unnecessarily edit-warring. Please read through WP:POV policies. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer article begins with an entirely false statement about me, Robert Priddy. The alleged article stated: "On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. I have never written any such thing in any blog, basta! In promoting this lie by the Daily Pioneer, this entry is chiefly an insidious extension of Gerald Moreno's massive highly visible web agenda to assassinate my character without any reliable evidence.Therefore this particular Pioneer entry is a most unreliable source so I am removing itProEdits (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer is very reputed source. Wikipedia reports what reputed sources report. Even in the WP:RS notice board discussion it was agreed that Daily Pioneer article is reliably sourced. You cannot simply remove a source from the Sathya Sai Baba because your name is mentioned in that article. That's POV pushing. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy completely avoids the issue in accordance with his agenda of attacking me, trying to make out that I am simply complaining about the appearance of my name in the article. If he can prove that the statement on the Pioneer article about me is true, then it would be a different matter. But he cannot because it is entirely false! Therefore this particular article is UNRELIABLE as a source, whatever others may have opined about the general reliability of the Daily Pioneer on-line. Why was my rebuttal under comments to the article not included? Here is it:

"Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. You have not given any source, as there is none which states this. It is totally untrue.

Besides, Sathya Sai Baba was charged with sexual abuse, in 2002 a petition was made to the Supreme Court of India but it was thrown out by judges in a blatant protection of the guru." Therefore I feel entirely justified in removal of this article.ProEdits (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your material is banned from this article.You maintain a web site which tries with great effort to slander Sai Baba. You have in the past added your own long rants to this article. The quote about yourself is not in the Wiki article. There is already enough in the article about the allegations and given their negligible impact on the subject, lack of a any proof or any legitimate case against Sai Baba, they should not be expanded. Sbs108 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sbs108: What material of mine is banned from this article? What are you getting at? Please try to make sense. I observe that you are colluding against me with Radiantenergy and J929 in disrupting my edits, most likely since neither of them will or can reasonably answer my reasons for removal of the badly researched Daily Pioneer article. I maintain a dissident website where I expose the many dark sides of Sathya Sai Baba - with very extensive documentation, that is not 'slander'. Still, the matter is irrelevant to the Daily Pioneer Article, which makes an initial totally false statement about me and hinges the entire article on this. The lie about me is so central to the article as to make it a totally unreliable source. It is based almost entire on Gerald Moreno's untruths about me on his websites etc. which were banned from Wikipedia in a separate decision to the one banning him unanimously from editing by 6 administrators.

I remind that there is a Wikipedia policy on 'No Original Research' to the Pioneer article. Wikipedia states:

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. The policy provides some tests to determine whether or not a publication should be considered reputable.

Is it openly partisan? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?"

On all these counts the Daily Pioneer, which is only available in an on-line version (i.e. is not 'The Pioneer' printed newspaper) is clearly unacceptable. I shall not let this matter rest until I have obtained justice. Hence new removalProEdits (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On an unreputable source article: As its title indicates, the Asian Voice newspaper has a focus on the Hindu/Gujarati community in London and Leicester. Circulation unknown, but was around 11,000 the last time it was audited a few years ago. The young journalist, Miss Payal Nair, shows in her wording that she has no expertise regarding Sai Baba or the controversy and she only reports unproven and often patently false gossip (eg. that John Lennon and Clinton were among his famous followers. Totally undocumented!). It is an obscure publications highly contentious claims and was first used by SSS108 (banned Gerald Moreno) to try to rebut criticisms but without any kind of proof that either the newspaper has good editorial control., not least since it reports mostly mere opinions of Sai devotees (eg. the disproven claim by then UK leader of the Sathya Sai Organization, Ashok Bhagani :"when devotees are selected by Sai Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room". Bhagani claimed to know - without the slightest evidence or proven investigation - that the sex allegations (of which over 30 testimonials by young men have been published) "are completely factless and baseless". The bias comes through initially by referring to the BBC "sought to rake up this controversy once again". He has posted the text etc. on two of his web sites and one blog, all of which are banned from use on Wikipedia by an Arb.Com. ruling. As such this material falls far short of qualifying as a reputable source by Wikipedian standards. ProEdits (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits - Most of your arguments are filled with only personal opinions. In Wikipedia personal opinions are not given any credit. This is neither a discussion about SSS108 nor a discussion about Payal Nair. Your arguments such as claiming "Miss Payal Nair, shows in her wording that she has no expertise regarding Sai Baba or the controversy and she only reports unproven and often patently false gossip" - again are your personal comments and wikipedia does not care about your comments or other's personal opinions. In Wikipedia we publish from reputed source. The source 'Asian Voice' has already been discussed before several times in this talk page as well as in the WP:RS and was accepted as a reliable source.

Here's a quick summary about Asian Voice Newspaper:

• Asian Voice Newspaper has been serving the British Asian community for 35 years.
• Asian Voice newspaper with the highest circulation among the Asian community in the UK is widely read amongst 650,000 people of Indian origin all over Britain.
• Asian Voice newspaper is in its 30th year of publication.
• According to the publisher's own statement, Asian Voice is the: "First and foremost Asian weekly in Europe...In terms of circulation, Gujarat Samachar and Asian Voice are the largest such publications outside India. In the UK, we are the only member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) in our sector."
• Asian Voice Newspaper also organise the Asian Diversity Awards. Recently in the House of Commons, UK - “International Entrepreneurs of the Year” was awarded to JetAirlines Founder Goyal and voted by the readers of the Asian Voice.
• Asian Voice Newspaper also has an electronic version epaper catering to the internet community. Here's a news link from Asian Voice - http://epaper.asian-voice.com/AV/AV/2009/06/13/ArticleHtmls/13_06_2009_002_001.shtml?Mode=1.

This source has already been extensively discussed in WP:RS notice board and was accepted as reliable source. Stop deleting this source from the article. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Watching the interchanges on this page, I cannot but note that it is a very one-sided discussion. ProEdits' comments - which strike me as sound - have been consistently ignored by his opponents (Radiantenergy, J929, and Sbs108).Out of fairness, I think the Daily Pioneer report, which which I have checked, is definitely unsound and I cannot find any blog where ProEdits (Priddy) has written what the paper claims. Secondly, in regard of 'original search', I find no indication that the (presumably online) Staff) in the case of the Pioneer article have evidenced any reporter contact with the source in question, the 'Australian Current Affair' producers of the television channel NineMSN.Thirdly, does the language, very atypical of reputed journalistic sources in many parts of the world, jell with that reputability for which 'The Pioneer - in its hard copy version has been noted by Wiki admin and others? Do the fiery, very unguarded language and the absence of hard facts square with a sampling of 'The Pioneer' - the off-line newspaper? Are offline and online reputabilities on a par? Whatever, the answer, I think removal of this poor and badly edited article, which reputed journalistic standards would surely avoid as running risks of defamation, is called for.Hedmstr1 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The degree of POV pushing by the trio RE, J929 and Sbs108 to keep a non-reputable article on the encyclopedia has spread - with massive repetition - over diverse notice boards and talk pages) without appreciable rational argument. The article by Sandhya Jain has been shown to be factually unreliable on its main introductory assertion (false statement about a Priddy blog which does not even exist), and subjective in most of its content. It is not even a news source, and it is highly inaccurate, making,as I have pointed out in /reasons for deletion. The article throughout is well below the standard even of the tabloid press in general. It makes false assertions,ignoring the world wide documentation from reputable sources such as UNESCO and the US State Department and numerous world class media such as the BBC, DR, India Today, Times of London, Daily Telegraph, Salon.com, The Guardian, The Age, Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen,CNN,and others. For example, the statement that opinion smearing ex-Sai Baba devotees by a gossip columnist, Sandhya Jain. This is far removed from serious debate. If it is allowed to remain on-line, Wikipedia will be further discredited showing it to be unable to control those Sai Baba people who act together in a cultlike group way to avoid dialogue, repeat endlessly their POVs and try to skew contents to zealous ends.Hedmstr1 (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument sounds straight out of the web site of Robert Priddy. Its about the reality of the allegations which have amounted to nothing. Why are you upset with two tiny paragraphs with a reputable source in India? The mention of the allegations in your "world class" media amounted to a blip on the screen and yes they are mentioned in the Article. The real POV pushing is you who will not allow a counter claim. Stop accusing us in bad faith. If we were not here this article would turn into the personal web site of Robert Priddy as it has more than once in the past. If you want me to dig out his edits, I can do that and you will see no "soundness" I can assure of that. The article is fair and balanced as it is. Please stop the accusation of POV pushing. Lets face it.. the real reason you don't want the Pioneer is because it calls out the lies and the ridiculousness of the "allegations" against Sai Baba, that is the only reason. What is there to dialogue, Sai Baba is free and innocent and no proof has been given of any crime. He is not convicted in any court of Law, there is no current case anywhere against him. All your sources have been mentioned in the article. News agencies can not convict people. Sbs108 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the Claim which links Sri Aurobindo and Sathya Sai Baba

At 07.20, 12 September, new User Hedmstr1 posted this explanation of a short new paragraph s/he was posting in the Biography section of the Sathya Sai Baba main article:

"Biography: I'd like us to find any quote from an official publication and/or scholarly paper or article on Sri Aurobindo. Would more documents from the Sri Aurobindo side be available to us?)"

In less than an hour User Geni had commendably removed this "in article commentary".

However, I believe the topic, which is part of the much wider and currently relevant subject of the different sorts of Claims made by Sathya Sai Baba, his associates and devotees, can still be profitably raised in these Discussion pages.

The paragraph posted by Hedmstr1 was: “It will be useful to obtain, inasmuch as they may have strong provenance, Sri Aurobindo scholars' statements on the exact situation that obtained with regard to Sri Aurobindo at that time. Of course, it is an article of faith that Sai Baba followers credit the words of their guru. Scholarship, however, will not stop short at this.”

To begin the discussion, and in partial answer to the request for information by Hedmstr1, these 2 comments are offered: 1. Copious information about Sri Aurobindo is available on at least 2 Wikipedia sites: Sri Aurobindo and Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo.

2. For contributors to this article, an easy first step towards investigating the frequently made devotee and official claim that Sri Aurobindo announced the Advent of Sathya Sai Baba on 24 November 1926 would be to consult the book about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba written by Birgitte Rodriguez, a fervent devotee and a previous follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. On pages xix-xxxvi of Glimpses of the Divine. Working with the Teachings of [Sathya] Sai Baba, Rodriguez gives an introductory account of her experiences in the ashram of Aurobindo and The Mother and of her later meeting with Sathya Sai Baba.

On page xxii, she reports from an account of the event in the Aurobindo ashram on 24 November (which also needs to be read as context- see extract 1 below) and on page xxiii, she specifically denies the relevance of this pronouncement to Sathya Sai Baba’s birth – see extract 2 below:

1. "On November 24, 1926, Sri Aurobindo withdrew into seclusion to devote his life to his supramental Yoga … As Sri Aurobindo writes in his book, Sri Aurobindo on Himself, "It was the descent of Krishna into the Physical" which rendered possible "the descent of the Supermind" in Matter. It was this, in fact, that was the aim of Sri Aurobindo's Yoga." (There is over half a page more of this background, which can be quoted later, if requested.)

2. "In Sri Aurobindo on Himself [she quotes pages 136 and 137]. Sri Aurobindo wrote, "Krishna, … the Cosmic Deity, Master of the universe, … was the guideof my yoga and with whom I realised identity …X thinks I am superior in greatness, you think there can be nothing greater than Krishna: each is entitled to have his own view or feeling, whether it is itself right or not. … If you reach Krishna you reach the Divine; if you can give yourself to Him, you give yourself to me.” It should be quite clear from this quotation that what happened on November 24, 1926 related to Sri Aurobindo. Quite often Sai devotees take this statement by Sri Aurobindo to be a reference to Sathya Sai Baba who was born on the preceding day, November 23, 1926. It is an incorrect interpretation." For the record, Rodriguez regards Sri Aurobindo and The Mother as "Divinities". (See Birgitte Rodriguez, Glimpses of the Divine. Working with the Teachings of [Sathya] Sai Baba, York Beach, Samuel Weiser. 1993. ISBN 0-87728-766-X, p. xxii-xxiii.) Ombudswiki (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I thank Ombudswiki for this information. It is a breath of fresh air to see that life exists aside from issues such as The Daily Pioneer and BBC, important though they may be. I again ask: are there any editors who have time and interest in other corners, such as the Aurobindo one. If it is true that there are two beliefs among Sathya Sai Baba devotees at large as to the status of Sri Aurobindo's claims, then such a divergence may properly be noted in the Wiki article. How do we determine, though? By hearsay? If I understand, Ombudswiki has raised at least one interesting instance: the Birgitte Rodigues book furnishes the case of a published, unequivocally pro Sathya Sai Baba author, who believes that Sri Aurobindo's reference was to his own form (and not to another form somewhere else). From one point of view (unless we had expected the publisher to have been prophetic if not omniscient as to apostates), it may be noted in passing that the Samuel Weiser publishing company is responsible for books of well-known Sathya Sai Baba devotees: e.g., Professor Samuel Sandweis, Howard Murphet and when they were devotees (a sign of the times?), Robert Priddy (ProEdits) and Brian Steel (Ombudswiki). Two questions: 1. Are there books or articles written by Sri Aurobindo experts which make it very clear that Sri Aurobindo referred unequivocally to himself. 2. Are there pro Sathya Sai Baba writers of published repute who have written from the standpoint of being able to guage something of the extent of a) Sathya Sai devotee belief and b) non-belief that Sri Aurobindo was referring to Sathya Sai Baba?

If these matters cannot be made clear via reputed sources, would contributers to the article be satisfied with the statement that: in general, some Sathya Sai devotees believe and some do not that Sri Aurobindo was referring to Sathya Sai Baba taking form, incarnately, as Sri Krishna, and that there is no conclusive evidence on either side?

In the meantime, one dearly wishes to see from yet others Ombudswicki's informative and detailed kind of response. Are substantive contributions such as his simply to languish unresponded to by other editors? Hedmstr1 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the preceding comment, here is some further background to the Aurobindo story.

There are two basic types of claims propagated about Sathya Sai Baba. His own explicit Divine claims have been recorded since 1953 in the much-neglected primary (or secondary) source of information about the guru, his Discourses. (See Bibliography.) The second type of claim is frequently found, not in the Discourses but in the vast collection of hundreds of hagiographical books and booklets about Sathya Sai Baba. These do not appear to emanate from the guru himself.

Typical of such special claims are those made and propagated by associates and other devotees about a number of alleged prophecies of the “Advent”of their guru. In addition to the Aurobindo claim described above, it is variously and repeatedly alleged in devotee books that the following are sources of prophecies of the birth of Sathya Sai Baba: The ancient Hindi Naadi Leaves, The New Testament Book of Revelations, the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, Nostradamus, and Edgar Cayce.

Typical of such claim propagation were the writings of the late Dr M.N.Rao, a retired high level Civil Servant who wrote four books about Sathya Sai Baba (widely read, particularly in India). In his 1985 publication (Sri Sathya Sai Baba: A Story of God as Man), Dr Rao adds this guarded comment to a five page section on the Aurobindo claim (‘The Descent of Divinity’): “There was no significant mention in his writings between 1926 and 1950 about Sathya Sai and his identity ...” (1990 edition, page 308). And, indeed, in Aurobindo’s writings and in that of his devotees, there is no mention of Sathya Sai Baba and his claimed Divinity. For example, in a book published by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press in 1973 (Sri Aurobindo, by Jessy Roarke), the important Descent episode is dealt with on pages 12-13 and includes this statement: “Finally, after the immense and untold labors of this biune divine manifestation, on 24th November 1926 the Overmind Godhead descended to the earth: not the Supermind as yet, but the next lowest manifestation of light and power, Sri Krishna preparing for the further advent” (page 12). And (on p. 13), “Formerly the Overmind was ascended to by a few great souls, but was not brought down. After he had brought it down, Sri Aurobindo retired most completely, the withdrawn Iswara who leaves his executive labors to his Shakti [The Mother]. […] He was now collecting himself in his mightiest yoga.”

In spite of this, the Aurobindo story and the other alleged prophecies have become a part of the official account of Sathya Sai Baba's life and Mission. The highly ornate commemorative Museum (The Chaitanya Jyoti Museum), opened in Puttaparthi in 2000, displayed a special section of exhibits depicting most of the prophecies. Among them could be seen the text and pictures which reinforce the devotee anecdote about Sri Aurobindo’s acknowledgement of the “descent of the Overmind” as “proof” of his acknowledgement of Sathya Sai Baba’s divine birth. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by ProEdits aka Activist Robert Priddy

• User:ProEdits you have vandalised the Sathya Sai article several times in the last 2 days.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

• User:ProEdits: Stop Vandalism and removing very important reliable sources from the article because of your WP:COI.
• You cannot remove a reliable source citing fringe reasons such as this source quotes my name hence it cannot be reliable. That's the reason why the activist are not allowed edit the articles in wikipedia where they are involved directly. This is not your personal website. This is wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what is published in other reliable sources.
• If you don't stop this vandalism you will be reported to the arbitration commiteee as disrupting this article for pushing your personal agendas.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User Radiantenergy and pro-Sai activist: I did not remember that more than 3 reverts was defined as vandalism as long as I was presenting civil, cogent and valid arguments why the source is unreliable. I would have hoped you may have been understanding and honest enough to admit it is entirely unfair and disreputable as regards the untrue attack it makes on me, which forms its pivotal introduction. I have explained to you already that this is far from being merely a matter of the source "quoting my name". The remainder of the baseless smears against me and other dissidents take their start and impetus from this untrue introductory paragraph. The entire article thereafter is tainted with the same brush. Moreover, before the Daily Pioneer published anything about the SWARA revolt, the only material to appear on the Internet denouncing the SWARA clients and their defenders was made by Gerald Joe Moreno in his sathyasaibaba.wordpress blog (among other of his many anti-dissident web pages). The Daily Pioneer article follows Moreno's agenda and claims very closely, using the same references and language as he uses. You are still defending this unfair and untrue product of a former Wiki contributor editor whose websites were banned by a panel of 5 persons (SSS108 or Gerald Moreno), while he was banned indefinitely and unanimously from editing by six persons. How do you justify that? If this kind of article is to form the basis of Wikipedia, then it is will become a travesty of an encyclopedia.ProEdits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

An activist is defined simply as "an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause". Having a web-site soley devoted to the task of defaming someone is activism. Merely editing an article in wikipedia where you have interest in making it fair is not activism I am sorry to tell you. Please don't paint editors who even though have a favorable view of Sathya Sai Baba, as the opposite side of the coin as yourself, we are not. We are also not Joe Moreno, so please stop mentioning his name. Once again the article is fair and mentions the allegations in proportion to their importance in the overall life of Sathya Sai Baba. By removing a source that has been discussed by outside editors and deemed reliable to this article, you are trying to apply your own logic as to why it shouldn't be in the article. Again do what you want on your website as this is not an extension of your website. The Pioneer is important because it casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations which as suspect by themselves.Sbs108 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to move forward with this

OK, as this situation is more than a little confusing for someone who does not know all the history and intricacies of this, something which is not being helped by everyone adding more text, let's try and simplify the concerns and issues around this so we can move forward.

Please correct me if I am wrong or am missing anything salient when I try and condense this latest edit war to the following:

• ProEdits believes that a source being used for a citation is unreliable.

• The RS noticeboard has declared that in general the source in question (The Daily Pioneer) can be considered a reliable source

• The article being cited mentions ProEdits by his real name.

• ProEdits disagrees with the veracity of the article being cited

• ProEdits is attempting to remove the entire section on the basis of the asserted reliability of the source.

• ProEdits' only basis for claiming the source is unreliable is the fact that is mentions his name and thus it must be in some way biased.

Does that sum up the situation?

If so then here's some facts that are readily apparent.

• ProEdits has a clear Conflict Of Interest

• An editor with a COI is entitled to remove material, or ask that material be removed, if it may be unreliably sourced and is controversial or may be in some way damaging to his/her reputation or have legal ramifications. This does not seem to be the case here.

• If a newspaper is considered generally reliable then that is adequate for it to be used to cite facts. The burden of proof is then passed onto the source. It is not for Wikipedia editors to be second guessing the fact checking of a source, that is original research.

What else am I missing?

If there is a clear consensus for inclusion of the material and no policy is being broken by its inclusion then continued removal of material against consensus would be treated as disruptive and would tend to indicate an attempt to advance a position. Obviously this is a highly polarized subject with supporters and detractors of the article's subject lining up to take sides but if editors on either side cannot distance themselves enough to edit an article with regard to NPOV then they should not be editing it at all.

If this cannot be resolved here then this really needs to be moved on to another forum such as dispute resolution, or it will end in another Arb Com ruling which will likely involve more topic bans. If editors want to be able to continue to edit in this area then they need to be able to work through and with their disagreements civilly and within guidelines or they need to find a completely different topic area. As it stands this battlefield of an article and talk page is doing to do nothing to attract new, neutral editors to even bother to get involved in reading, let alone editing, this talk page and article. If that remains the case then this situation will never get resolved. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mfield: I think you summarized the issue well. That's what's happening. User:ProEdits has been edit-warring and removing the 'Daily Pioneer' source on the pretext that the article cites his name and hence its unreliable. In the Sathya Sai Baba article the section from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been written neutrally and Robert Priddy aka User:ProEdits name has not been mentioned anywhere in the article.
• Also this source from the 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. When taken to the WP:RS board it was clearly mentioned that this source from 'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article and removing it is a BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba. Please see the discussion from WP:RS notice board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question
• Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. A reliable source should not be allowed to be removed just because one of the activist has a problem with it because of his WP:COI. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep referring to the WP:RS discussion. You started it with the claim:

The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case

That claim is patently false. Alaya Rahm requested that the case be dismissed. Dismissal is not based on the merits of the case.

For anybody who still thinks that Sandhya Jain is a credible journalist, here's an excerpt from one article:

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is so ridiculously inaccurate that I can't believe anybody reading it would ever trust the author again. Jain has completely failed to understand the Voting Rights Act, which was renewed for 25 years, rather than the claimed 10, and which doesn't do anything close to what Jain claims. Black people have automatic voting rights, period.

Given how ignorant Jain is, I think it is ridiculous for Wikipedia to include anything from this source in the article. Bhimaji (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

• Bhimaji, The Alaya Rahm case was extensively discussed and was clearly perceived by the other outside wikipedians. There was no confusion or false claims. I am noticing that you obviously seem dissatisfied with the WP:RS discussion and their conclusions and are too often passing your personal opinions about this WP:RS discussion.
• Discussions such as 'Criticism on Sandhya Jain' are more of personal opinion. Wikipedia does not give any credit to personal opinions. Your statement is like saying "CNN is unreliable source because Lou Dobbs - American radio and television host, who conducted the illegal immigration panel discussion in CNN was openly biased and hence CNN is unreliable".. These are personal opinions. This does not make the source CNN unreliable. The discussion about Voting Rights acts column also came up in the WP:RS discussion and it was well addressed. CNN is considered reliably sourced though it has a whole article criticizing it and same applies to 'Daily Pioneer'. Every TV viewer or reader will have some thing to say about the television host or editor of an article that does not discredit the reliability of the source. Every wikipedian editor will have an opinion - that's why we don't write wikipedia articles based on 'Original research' or personal opinions.

As MField mentioned above since the 'Daily Pioneer' was declared as reliable in WP:RS its not for Wikipedia editors to be second guessing the source that amounts to original research.

Certain things are very clear at this stage.

• Daily Pioneer was repeatedly mentioned as reliably sourced and was accepted as reliably sourced in the WP:RS discussion.
• Daily Pioneer article has important refutations to criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. Daily Pioneer has to be included if BBC is included leaving out the 'Daily Pioneer' alone will be a BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.

Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

• IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

Daily Pioneer was declared as a reliable source in the WP:RS and leaving it out while keeping the BBC source is a BLP violation and hence 'Daily Pioneer' should be included in the article as per the WP:RS discussion.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer may be a Reputable Source but in the article in question here the journalist has written from a very subjectively charged and partisan viewpoint. Consider these quotations:

“a lingering, insidious smear campaign”

“Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”.”

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM

"You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. "You have not given any source, as ther is none which states this. It is totally untrue.)”

Consider also the following wild suggestion:

"The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later."

And this bit of of sensationalism:

"Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!"

Her final exclamation: "Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink."

Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable? (See http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html) Ombudswiki (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

• Where there any opinionated statements in the 2004 BBC documentary? - Ofcourse - there were several strong statements.
• BBC documentary had dramatic dialogue and emotional statements building the 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba' slowly based on Alaya Rahm allegations. BBC documentary had very strong criticism on Sathya Sai Baba mainly projecting critics such as Premananda's views. The 2004 BBC documentary - reporter Tanya Datta was openly biased.

Some examples of strong statements from the BBC documentary criticising Sathya Sai Baba:

• "His distinctive 1960s orange robes and Afro hairstyle make him instantly recognisable...." - Is this statement not opinionated?. Does it sound fair / impartial?

• "He certainly has friends in high places, and throughout the scandal, his popularity has remained intact..."

• "number of former devotees who have turned away from his teachings, claiming he has ruined their lives..."

• "I remember him saying, if you don't do what I say, your life will be filled with pain and suffering." - dramatic statements and dialogues..

In the article Sai Baba: God-man or con man? by Tanya Dutta has the following strong statements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm

• "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich", he says of his bete noire ...

• "But Brooke's allegations were dismissed out of hand by the tightly controlled Sai Baba Organisation..."

• "He believes that the country's biggest spiritual leader, Sri Satya Sai Baba, is a charlatan and must be exposed."

Inspite of all these above opinionated statements and conclusions in the BBC documentary by Tanya Dutta - BBC is still used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article. The same people who complain about 'Daily Pioneer' - Sandhya Jain's opinions did not have any problems with the opinionated statements from Tanya Dutta presented in the BBC documentary.

• As I mentioned above 'Daily Pioneer' is a reputed reliable source.
• The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article.
• 'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article as per the WP:RS recommendation. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm complaining about Sandhya Jain's facts being false.

Can you explain to me what's wrong with the comments about Sai Baba's hair? Bhimaji (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For Radiantenergy:

Is this your idea of "moving forward? Your latest response fails to address the facts which I presented about this poor journalistic article, so your categorical proposals are irrelevant. Please transfer your opinions about the BBC documentary to the appropriate section. It is not under discussion here.

The contents of written or spoken evidence are important (here and elsewhere) and at some stage you will have to address them directly rather than bluster if you wish to convince your readers. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer source has already been discussed by outside editors. It was deemed appropriate for the article. The Wiki article on Sai Baba is fair and balanced. Why try and remove a source? Because its one article that calls out the "allegations" for what they are. Sbs108 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper is the Source. The quality of this specific Article is what I was questioning, with evidence. Please address that evidence, in particular the wild assertions and the apparent untruth about an alleged statement by Robert Priddy, denied by him in the Comments on the online article.

By the way, I would advise you not to use the name Sai Baba in public references to Sathya Sai Baba. It is ambiguous and its use may offend the millions of devotees of Shirdi Sai Baba, the original bearer of the name. Ombudswiki (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source Websites for Official Information on Sathya Sai Baba

Preamble: I venture to raise this important issue for a second time since it was summarily dismissed by User J929 on 20 August 2009 and smothered by subsequent filibustering on other issues. See [6]

It may be noted in this connection that User Onopearls commented on User J929's dismissal of my posting in these terms:

“there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions." I was shocked to read that. I would strongly suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, as you (and none of the editors or administrators I might add) have the right to dismiss the opinion of another editor, nor do they have to come to a "consensus" about the "validity" of another editors opinions. Onopearls (t/c) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)” See [7]

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-) www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division) www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos) (Of circumstantial interest: www.saibaba.com and www.saibaba.org, promote Sai Baba of Shirdi and have no connection with the 5 sites named above.)

All official information can be obtained from these sites, or from those run by branches of the worldwide Sathya Sai Organisation, which bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other sites which deal with Sathya Sai Baba from a devotional point of view (and there are increasingly large numbers of them), however big and popular, are unofficial devotee sites and, while the largest of them often relay much of the official information to devotees (e.g. the translated and edited Discourses), this is now available on the extensive official websites listed above, which should surely be the sources named in Wikipedia articles.

Since many of these unofficial devotee sites also promote a miscellaneous variety of devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility, I suggest they cannot be assumed automatically to be Reliable Sources from a Wikipedia point of view.

Would it not avoid problems, therefore, to avoid referring in this article to any unofficial devotee sites (except, perhaps, in very exceptional cases)? The three largest and most popular among devotees, all mentioned at some time or another in articles about Sathya Sai Baba, are: www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com, which, amongst a plethora of devotee information about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba, bhajans, etc., has a separate section devoted to attacking critics of Sathya Sai Baba.

To regularise the situation for this article and the several others about Sathya Sai Baba, I suggest that attempts should now be made to convert current references to these and other unofficial devotee sites to references to the 5 official sites listed above or to other Sathya Sai Organisation official websites. A singular proof of the disadvantages of giving devotee sites as citation sources is to be seen in one of the references in the new and controversial Prema Sai Baba article. (See the Talk page there for further comment.) Should I also take this case to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"This page is 114 kilobytes long."

When one edits the Sathya Sai Baba page, the following notice appears "This page is 114 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles..." Since Bibliography 2 has been added to the Sathya Sai Baba page, Wikipedia suggests "to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."

It seems space has to be optimised in order for a clear presentation of the page.

• Is it possible to add the information from Bibliography 2 (now on the page itself) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba (Bibliography 1) or to the Sathya Sai Baba movement page?

• i'd also suggest moving the "political row" section to either Sathya Sai Baba Movement or getting rid of it completely (as it seems to be alot of discussion for an event that happened almost two years ago)

• another idea may be to remove the long syllabus after every 'Nagel, Alexandra' and 'Babb, Lawrence A.' reference in the 'reference section'. perhaps joining the reference so it only apperars once, or moving long detailed descriptions of books to the bibliography section.

any suggestions on how to proceed, as Wikipedia suggests "to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."

J929 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving back the Bibliography 2 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba (Bibliography 1) and just have the link in the main article. That will give enough space. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The present Archive is very long because of the inordinately long filibusters that have been conducted in it - to which both of you, J929 and Radiantenergy, have contributed a major part! Perhaps you could contribute to a reduction of the volume by being more succinct and more relevant in future postings.

As far as the Bibliographies are concerned, they are links in the bottom Template for the article, which is where they belong. What you could usefully do is expand the woefully inadequate Bib.1, add it as a separate section of the more extensive and better laid out Bib. 2, and rename the whole as 'Bibliography on Sathya Sai Baba' - leaving it where it is now, in the bottom Template - with a similar link on the templates of the many other articles related to Sathya Sai Baba.

It would not be appropriate or helpful to deny readers the chance of clicking the link to the suggested Bibliography on this subject by removing it to another article. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved "Further Reading" section to Bibliography 1 (and changed template). Message appears, "This page is 97 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." will try to link references...

J929 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Treat others as you would have them treat you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

What is this latest suggestion for reliable sources when Proedits cites the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html . the site belongs to Barry Prittard, another Anti Sai Baba activist (http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/barry-pittar/)
Ombudswiki enquires, "Should I also take this case to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard?" that is the right forum for such discussions, or is there a reason you are asking?
Are you trying to improve the article or steer it?

In Brain Steel's (Ombudswiki) recent contribution to the wikipedia Reliable source notice board, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain and in a previous entry on this discussion page.
he states in reference to The Daily Pioneer being a reputable source,
"Consider also the following wild suggestion: "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later."" He states clearly that this statement by The Daily Pioneer is a "wild suggestion." However on his own website, http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/pparthivisit08.htm he talks about his visit to Puttaparthi in October 2008. Sathya Sai Baba's home town and abode. (On Robert Priddys website aka wikipedia editor, ProEdits... "Recently, Brian Steel returned from a surprise visit to Puttaparthi bearing a swag of documents and audiovisual material that, under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed would be perceptible to commonsense and reason." http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/ " On a surprise visit to see the ashram, Brian Steel discovered that things are not as they were in various respects. Not least, the gaudy propaganda venue, the Chaitanya Jyoti "museum" is undergoing 'damage-limitation' http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/brian-steels-secret-visit-to-see-sathya-sai-baba/ ")

Brian clearly dismissed the story by the Daily pioneer as "sensationalism" and yet he himself was the subject of the statement, "Key blogs in the defamation were robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com; briansteel.wordpress.com."

• ex devotee...
  
• infiltrated the ashram... ("secret visit")
  
• intention of maligning Baba later..."under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed"
  

What kind of Lies are these ? how is this "good faith"? Then call someone else unreliable when they directly report on your activities, wasting time and effort of other editors. How does this help the article? Is this behavoir part of the "official" information you want other editors to adhere to?

Ombudswiki further states, "Her final exclamation: "Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink." Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable?" is your behavior capable of responding to her writing? your actions are now speaking much louder...

Puttaparthi is 3 hours plus from Bangalore, along dusty and bumpy roads. Not necassarily in the neighbourhood.

Why would Brian Steel spend the time, money and effort to go 3 hours (one way) and back to go see Sathya Sai Baba? (he visited the Ashram, Sai towers, " I adventurously chose chai and a toasted cheese sandwich in the small café in Sai Towers..." the museum etc...) How then can he claim that this statement is a "wild suggestion" in good faith that he himself went to Puttaparthi to gather information to further malign Sathya Sai Baba. Is this not a direct Lie on a wikipedia notice board and here on the discussion board? To what agenda are you catering to Brian? Other editors have to sift through information only to find your lies and propoganda.

In reference to social behavior, if one had a significant other, (boyfirend or girlfriend etc...) and the relationship ceased yet one of the partners kept slandering the other (ie frequent blogs ( http://briansteel.wordpress.com/ ) or making fun of them, ie "Sathya Sai Baba Video. Too Weak To Cut Birthday Cake" http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/ ..." he cant even cut a ribbon without help") then after some years goes back to others' place of residence and "brings back some swag" i would be in serious doubt of this person's social skills. In fact it is common for one party to seek a restraining order against another who propogates such behavior.

This is Wikipedia, not your website Brian.

Your lies and treating other editors with condescending tones, patronising remarks and "wild suggestions" ("you are wandering", " energetic and hasty", "you are looking for expressions of sympathy " etc ..) do not constitute "good faith" and only waste time and effort of other editors.

Barry Pittard states on his web site "Science or Sai-ence?" (http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/) i'd like to suggest the following, "Science or Sai Co."

J929 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Talk page is not the place for you to present your theories about Ombudswiki or ProEdits. Take it to their respective talk pages, and reply to the RS post on the RS noticeboard. Don't bring your arguments and theories about certain editors to the talk page of SSB, which is for discussing the man, the article, and information that directly pertains to either of them (the post above is obviously not about SSB or the article, so please don't argue that it directly pertains to either.) Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and BLP violations

Per our policy on biographies of living people, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Several editors have inserted negative claims about Alaya Rahm, a living person, sourced to this op-ed. Mr. Rahm has been accused of drug and alcohol abuse on the basis of an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and certainly not for something that reflects negatively on a private individual like this. Furthermore, verifiability policy requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues, especially not when she's cranking out howlers like this — for a specific debunking of Jain's claim that "America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote," see here. You can't cite an obscure op-ed to countermand the BBC, Daily Telegraph, and India Today put together — that is a classic example of undue weight. And Jain's material was given as much space as the other sources put together. Six citations in total! This is a farce. It has to stop — Wikipedia will follow WP:NPOV and other policies. *** Crotalus *** 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your arguments are based on the assumption that 'The Daily Pioneer article' is unreliable. You mentioned in the Reliable Sourced notice board that "The Daily Pioneer" is Op-ed article and hence its unreliable. That's not true.

• The 'Daily Pioneer article covering the Alaya Rahm trial' by Sandhya Jain is not an Oped article. The 'Daily Pioneer' by Sandhya Jain was published in the 'Sunday Pioneer' on March 31st 2009. Its in par with other reputed reliable published sources like "Salon.com" or BBC.

• An op-ed, is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. Sandhya Jain is a part of the 'Daily Pioneer's' editorial team. Here's the list of the editorial team from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/COLUMNIST/Column.html. The Daily Pioneer has a separate link for Op-ed articles here - http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html.

• The arguments such as "Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues, especially not when she's cranking out [http://www.dailypioneer.com/190509/US-unequal-to-India.html" is ridiculous. Tanya Dutta in BBC documentary quoted "Sathya Sai Baba is a Mafia Man" - This is the most ridiculous and factually incorrect statement. Was BBC removed from the Sathya Sai Baba article for the above incorrect statement?.

• If in other reliable sources we don't argue or discuss about the editor then why is 'Daily Pioneer' an exception? I don't understand why is this becoming discussion about Sandhya Jain inspite of knowing that Tanya Dutta who did the BBC had more incorrect, untrue and factual inaccuracies about the subject - 'Sathya Sai Baba'. If we distract and start discussing about the editors then we have to discuss every editor of the source like 'Daily Telegraph' or 'Salon.com' or BBC.

• Alaya Rahm made allegations to the BBC documentary but in the following 2006 trial interrogation his allegations became questionable. This topic has already been discussed in detail in the earlier RS discussion. Important conclusions were made about 'Daily Pioneer article and the 2006 Alaya Rahm case in the earlier RS discussion.

• Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

• To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

Including the refutation to Alaya Rahm allegations from the 'Daily Pioneer' is very important as pointed by the earlier RS discussion. Removing it will be a BLP violation to the article subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? Do you know what quotation marks are? The BBC article said that Basava Premanand called Sathya Sai Baba a mafia man. If Premanand did, in fact, say that, then the BBC article is correct.

If the information in the Daily Pioneer article is so obvious, correct and important, why hasn't anybody else said it? Bhimaji (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Bhimaji, Did BBC verify the facts? So what happened to factual verification and checking for inaccuracies? When it is printed in BBC - it only conveys to the world one thing - Pretty much what they said. Obviously this is a major error, incorrect and biased statement and BBC - Tanya Dutta should be held responsible for such statements and BBC must be removed as per your own earlier arguments.
• Regarding your next question - why hasn't anybody else said it?. They already said that several times in the earlier RS discussion that 'The Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm trial is reliably sourced' as it is supported by the case links from 'The Superior Court of California Website'. How many more times you want them to convey this? Are you willing to listen if it is repeated to you again?
• In this new case you did n't present the facts and the correct links and you have been writing your own wikipedia rules.
• The earlier RS discussion the whole discussion was based on 'Alaya Rahm case' in the Daily Pioneer - here in the new discussion WP:RS so far has been very unproductive and its so huge neutral wikipedians are not even interested in reading through it. On top of it you started with a wrong link and totally distracted the subject. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandhya Jain is listed as a columnist. In newspaper terms, this often refers to someone who writes opinion pieces. Based on Jain's writings, that is clearly the case here. This is not a news article — it doesn't even pretend to be neutral and neither do Jain's other writings in the same paper. It is an opinion column. Therefore it is not a reliable source for factual claims about living people. You are also proposing that we go trawling through court records (primary sources) to dig up information ourselves, which is original research. If you believe that the charges against Sai Baba are unfounded, then you must find a reliable, third-party source that discusses this point of view. You can't throw in a poorly written opinion column just because nothing else backs up your views. *** Crotalus *** 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Crotalus - You seem be adding your own rules in wikipedia. Initially you said "Daily Pioneer is OP-ed" hence its unreliable. Then after I pointed that's a wrong statement then you said it is an Editorial piece hence cannot be used and after that was clarified. Now you are saying its a columnist view hence cannot be used.
• Its very obvious that you are too anxious to disqualify this source at any cost. You started edit-warring in the middle of an on-going discussion openly showing your bias about this discussion.
• Wikipedia reliability policy states "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted source material for themselves. That's exactly what you are trying to do above.
• It also states that The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.
• Your interpretation of Sandhya Jain source are your personal opinion.Above you seem to be interpreting the source "The Daily Pioneer" as you like to facilitate its removal.
• You have n't mentioned a word about "Tanya Dutta" - factual inconsistancies and utterly wrong statements in BBC. If we start looking at editors instead of the source "Daily Pioneer" Or "BBC" then we must look at every source that way. Why is "Daily Pioneer" alone an exception to that rule? What about 'Michelle Goldberg' who wrote Salon.com? and the rest of other editors whose sources are quoted in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• In wikipedia other article when you quote a source like 'CNN' - then that's accepted as a reliable source and we are not going to be discussing about "Lou Dobbs" who covered the article. Again why is 'Daily Pioneer' an exception to all the wikipedia rules?
• It could be argued that then every documentary is pretty much opinion based and must be disqualified. Tanya Dutta covered Premananda opinions and telecasted in BBC. That's the reason it is mentioned in the article. If we decide to get rid of opinionated article then we have to get rid of BBC which made ridiculous BLP violating statements such as "Sathya Sai Baba is a Mafia Man". Lets start first fixing that serious BLP violation in the article by removing BBC which made opinionated wrong incorrect statement in the first place. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to ask you a straightforward question and I expect an honest answer. What is your religious affiliation? Are you a follower of Sathya Sai Baba? I am asking this because I do not intend to argue with people whose minds are already made up. I believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue. Do you have a conflict of interest with regards to the subject matter? *** Crotalus *** 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to remind you about WP:AGF. It would be more helpful for the discussion if you address the real issues / questions I posted above rather than accusing me unnecessarily. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, it is my assessment there is more than one party that appears to have a major conflict of interest and should consequently not be editing this article. Strong beliefs and convictions, whether pro or contra the subject, preclude neutral editing whether or not the editor has ever been a member of the organization. If anyone is coming along with a strong opinion on the subject, and are trying to word the article so as to back up that opinion, then they should not be editing, simple as that. It is becoming clear that more topic bans needs to be put in place and enforced to prevent the continued use of this article as a means of forwarding personal agendas from both sides. I am not going to point fingers as that would be a decision for a committee but I would endorse a request being filed as it is clear that this is not getting anywhere and never will as long as editors are unable to put aside their preconceptions and personal on and off wiki experiences and grudges. Reliable sourcing is the gold standard in a BLP and all the arguing in the world about a single source just goes directly to prove how partisan and thus COI'd editors are on this subject. If there is significant doubt about a source then it should not be used, and if there are no other sources - especially secondary and tertiary - that back up and confirm what the contested source is saying then that itself speaks to the reliability of the original source. Mfield (Oi!) 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus, you stated "Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues," thats seems apparent but that is not the issue here. it was only brought up by bhimaji, who forgot to write about what he posted the RS notice about.

The BBC has made alot of mistakes and has had to issue apologies for many of its employees. Is it a reliable source?

Crotalus, you further stated "that is a classic example of undue weight.", these allegations (and they are allegations, in that Sai Baba has not been proven guilty of any crimes, US law dictates "Innocent until proven guitly') against Sai Baba have been pushed by certain editors who promote the BBC documentary on their own slanderous and attack websites. "Undue weight" is also given in discussing an allegation that has never been proven (Innocent until proven guitly), and not to mention it has been over 5 years since that time. Is this in itself a BLP violation?

"Do you have a conflict of interest with regards to the subject matter?" Please note that the BBC documentary was originally deemed a BLP violation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question . If you "believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue", then you should note Editor ProEdits kept adding information on the BBC documentary to the Sathya Sai article after this. If the BBC documentary is not allowed (as its already been deemed a BLP violation) then this entire discussion is for nothing. i'd suggest looking into that issue before starting on this topic.

If you believe that to have outside interets in Sai Baba is COI, i would ask you to please state your opinion here . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:ProEdits .

it may be a good idea to address Radiantenergy's question directly rather than stating "What is your religious affiliation? Are you a follower of Sathya Sai Baba? I am asking this because I do not intend to argue with people whose minds are already made up. I believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue." If an arguement is sound, what does it matter that he/she is Muslim, Hindu etc... why did you side step the issue? Is you agenda to convince others or to approach this discussion with an open mind?

J929 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

J929: I quote from the above response to Crotalus:

"Please note that the BBC documentary was originally deemed a BLP violation [8]"

Can you please quote in full the parts of those labyrinthine submissions, mainly by Radiantenergy, which justify your assertion that the BBC documentary was deemed a BLP violation? The Question initially posed by Radiantenergy was: "What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue?" I can find no consensus that the BBC documentary violates BLC provisions. I did see a recommendation to take the case to the BLP section. Was that done and is there a further reference? Or have I missed something here? Ombudswiki (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You missed the main parts of the discussion - the discussion is not arranged in order by dates. I have added important conclusions from that discussion in correct order for quick reference. Initially RegentsPark proposed that it should be taken to the BLP board. Later it was followed by more discussion stated below.

Comments by Jehochman (Administrator)

• Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned that "Alaya Rahm was covered in the Daily Pioneer article by Sandhya Jain". Then the discussion was about the reliability of the source "The Daily Pioneer article by Sandhya Jain".

Comments by RegentsPark(Administrator) on the BBC material

• I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends.

Comments by RegentsPark made about Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain

• "Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• That discussion was followed by recommendation from Priyanath.

Final Concluding remarks by Priyanath:

• IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The 2 sources mentioned by Priyanath above are the "Daily Pioneer" and the "Alaya Rahm case links from the Superior Court of California website".

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I still do not understand your claim, Radiantenergy. You select a few quotes from other contributors to the debate but not, as I see it, a clear decision of condemnation. What about the following contributions to that debate? Have they been discounted? Did you apply to the BLP "tribunal" as suggested?

Selected QUOTES from the discussion:

….. [part] Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through RFC's. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically: • Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ? • Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ? Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points: • The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true". • The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case. The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary). As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I find your convolutions confusing. Maybe others do as well. Please clarify all of this. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Ombudswiki, User:Abecedare posted those questions. You are copying comments from the earlier part of the discussion. Then those points were discussed. Then later it was followed by the comments by User:RegentsPark who also replied to Abecedare's arguments which I have already posted above.
• Please look at the time and date. I have already showed you the later comments and conclusions by RegentsPark and the final conclusion by Priyanath agreed by every body.
• Please don't expect me to copy the whole discussion here.
• The Earlier RS discussion was very clear. That was a good discussion completely analyzing the situation.
• The case was discussed correctly by independent wikipedians and clear verdict was passed which was agreed by everybody. It must be respected and implemented. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:TLDR. I am not going to waste time plowing through these huge walls of text (most of which appears to be copied and pasted from previous discussions). Unless someone has something new to bring to the table, I believe I have already made my position sufficiently clear. *** Crotalus *** 13:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you are unwilling to read the earlier RS discussion and comments by other experienced outside wikipedians who judged the source 'Daily Pioneer' in all its aspects and also the central theme 'Alaya Rahm case' covered in the Daily Pioneer. Then your judgement of the source 'Daily Pioneer' is going to be insufficiently incorrect. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus, your opinion does not weigh more or less than other editors involved. Its one opinion. There is no absolute regarding this source. Someone had complained about the source and it was taken to the RS board. The majority of neutral (unemotional admins) deemed the source suitable for the Wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba. I respect your opinion but that does mean I agree with it or think it is correct. There are valid arguments on both sides. The question is what is the best decision given all the circumstances, rules, points of view, past history, specificity to the article. The source alone has to be looked at as a whole. The source in question is only used in two paragraphs. It has important factual information about the Alaya Rahm case. It also contains the fact that Sai Baba has never been charged,convicted or proven guilty of any crime whatsoever. This is very important information given the baseless charges the supposedly "respectable" news agencies were making.Sbs108 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With reference to Radiantenergy's posting of 12:19, 24 September (responding to my post of 07:01, 24 September, I sincerely apologise to all other readers of this seething morass of argumentative detail but I must ask Radiantenergy just one more time to provide convincing quotations to prove what he says in his much-repeated assertion that the case about this particular article was definitively resolved in the forum he cites as his authority to demand the recognition of the article as a Reliable Source.

Refresher QUOTE from Radiantenergy: "The case was discussed correctly by independent wikipedians and clear verdict was passed which was agreed by everybody. It must be respected and implemented."

I simply cannot detect this “clear verdict” nor the agreement of “everybody” in the text of the long discussion to which he refers us. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Ombudswiki, We already had this discussion before. You had mentioned earlier part of the discussion - initial questions and I had already posted the counter arguments and the final conclusion in the RS board. Please look through the last part of the comments and conclusions added by me here from RegentsPark and Priyanath statements - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=315846070. I had arrranged them by dates.
• RegentsPark repeatedly mentioned that the "Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain" as reliably sourced. Some of his statements: " I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly ..", "Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm...".
• The final conclusion after this long discussion was posted by Priyanath - :::* To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
• The 2 sources mentioned by Priyanath above are the "Daily Pioneer" and the "Alaya Rahm case links from the Superior Court of California website".
• There was a clear verdict in the earlier RS discussion. It must be upholded by adding back the 'Daily Pioneer' references to prevent any further BLP violations to the subject - 'Sathya Sai Baba' as per the earlier RS recommendation. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute protection

I am copying the following reply I gave to an editor on my talkpage as it includes comments that are relevant to all...

Hi, please note the following information in the dispute template "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Protection is implemented to prevent instability, it is not intended to protect one version or another of the article. It is clear that there is still no consensus on whether this contentious material is to be included, and that it needs to be discussed more completely. I am not espousing one version or another by protecting it at a certain revision, as that would imply that administrators are responsible for content which they are not. It certainly seems as though the recommendations of the RS noticeboard have not cleared the matter up, and policy is being quoted by both sides of the dispute. It looked like a consensus was clear the last time it was argued over but Crotalus makes some valid and reasonable points and this goes some way to balancing out the swing of the previous consensus to include. I really think that this dispute requires more impartial eyes, as it is clear that more that one party in this dispute has not only strong personal opinions on the article subject, but also a history of emnity towards other parties in the dispute. I am copying this response onto the article talk page as well.

Mfield (Oi!) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirdi Sai Baba and claims

i do not see the need for placing "Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and his claims of Divinity [9]made during the early years of his Mission, are recorded in the volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks.[10]" in the lead paragraph.

• the previous statement "He has repeatedly claimed to be the reincarnation of the fakir and saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi" already states this claim, theres no need to repeat it.
• the Sathya Sai Speaks series is in the bibliography (and among references to the information already stated) what is the reason for stating it as a subject? i dont think this is information that lends itself to a lead paragraph
• why is Smt. Vijayakumari mentioned? who is he? and what important relationship to Sathya Sai Baba does he hold? so what if he was an early devotee? should Subbamma be mentioned in the introduction? she obviously also had first hand knowledge of Sai Baba's youth.
• it seems the only point the sentence (and ombudswiki) is trying to make is about Sai Baba's "claims of Divinity"? what are you exactly trying to say? why all the dross of repeating the previous sentence about Shirdi Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Speaks reference? It is already stated that he is " a South Indian guru, religious figure" Guru in wikipedia states, "In its purest form this principle manifests on earth as a divine incarnation (saint), a person with supreme knowledge about God and all creation." if the term "Guru" implies divinity, then this is also a repetition of the first sentence.

on the site http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/doss2claims.htm brian steel states "From the beginning of his Mission, it was SSB who assiduously attracted attention to himself and encouraged his devotees to talk about the special features he was promoting: his MIRACLES and his healing ability, his Avatarhood and Divine powers, his relationship with the legendary Hindu Avatars (Rama and Krishna), and the Shirdi Baba reincarnation connection." is this another reference to this connection? he continues, "From the mid-1960s to date, SSB's Organisation, the SSO, took over the main task of propagation of this Divine image of SSB, especially in print." do the Sathya Sai Speaks series count as "print"? if so, then the same view on that web site is being propogated here. is there a "concern" about the Sathya Sai speaks series?

similarities seem to be

• Shirdi Sai Baba reincarnation connection
• Claims of Divinity
• propogation of these ideas ("in print" or the Sathya Sai speaks series)

the editorial addition is repeating what has already been stated. and seems to be propogating original research, hence it should not be in the lead paragraph.

the Sathya Sai speaks series is obviously a source for information about Sathya Sai Baba.

J929 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I wish to draw attention to J929’s haste in resuming his activities so soon after the raising of the Protection order on this article. Once again in these voluminous Discussion pages, on which he has expressed himself prolifically, J929 has offered a doubly flawed argument to justify his repeated deletions of my factual material. One flaw is his tendency to confuse useful factual documentation (the listing and citing of Reliable – and relevant - Sources) with original research. (Incidentally, the Reliable Sources I referred to in my addition to the paragraph also happen to be neglected Primary (or Secondary?) sources.) The other familiar flaw in J929’s objection to the material is the long convoluted references to irrelevant external sources.

J929 has now objected more than twice to the inclusion of the following 37-word sentence (already pared down since his first reversion, so his reference to Viyayakumari is out of date) and its 2 essential references:

“Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and his claims of Divinity [Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20070217085749/www.sathyasai.org/discour/content.htm] made during the early years of his Mission, are recorded in the volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks.[Reference: Especially in Volume 1, which contains translations of Discourses delivered during the years 1953 to 1960. See http://www.sssbpt.info/english/sssvol01.html]”

Let me explain briefly why the short initial paragraph to this article needed expanding:

1.

“He is described by his devotees as an avatar …” [I have added italics.] This is of course true but it is also a frequently repeated and misleading half-truth. There was no reference in this paragraph to the official primary evidence (in the freely available volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks) that Sathya Sai Baba himself has repeatedly asserted that he is the Avatar and has special Divine powers. This is one of the circumstances leading to the beliefs by his devotees and is a basic fact about his life and work. I tried to fill that gap by referring directly to the official web pages and books which have endorsed and made this information freely available to the public for many years.

2.

“He has repeatedly claimed to be the reincarnation of the fakir and saint, Shirdi Sai Baba …” In the original paragraph (prior to my addition), this is also potentially misleading, because readers may assume that this is the only relevant assertion or claim by Sathya Sai Baba, which as I have just pointed out, is far from the known and recorded truth. Hence my additional reference to material about Shirdi Sai and to the other assertions or claims so that they can all be referred to together. (It is to be noted that J929 does not object here to the word “claimed”.)

That is why I claim that my posting of the short additional sentence and references is positive and legitimate. The reference to the 39 volumes of Sathya Sai Baba’s Discourses is to a primary source of information. So my factual sentence, far from containing “research” conclusions, is simply a pointer to basic reference points – inexplicably neglected by Wikipedians so far - from which to approach the description of the life and works of this important guru.

I am relieved to see that User Onopearls has reinstated the succinct sentence and references to the article. I suggest that this small contribution improves the article’s information value and I hope that it will help all editors to consult the “acres” of prime officially supplied information about Sathya Sai Baba to which it refers. I believe this to be a a more constructive and appropriate editing activity than that of User J929. Ombudswiki (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to your personnal attacks, condescending tone and patronizing remarks i'm no longer reading your comments. the effort of sifting through the mud of your 'edits' has ceased. if you want to in good faith continue this discussion , please re-write your previous 'edits' without the slanderous comments. this is not your personnal web page. (write in point form if you dont want to employ social graces)

in relation to the topic, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

J929 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Claims concerning Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba's Divinity are already discussed (See Guru) the only new info is that the Sathya Sai series contains Sathya Sai Baba's disocurses.

"So my factual sentence, far from containing “research” conclusions, is simply a pointer to basic reference points" is an analysis, which is prohibited by Wikipedia.

The edit includes "Especially in Volume 1, which contains ..." "Especially" seems to pointing to a difference from one volume to another. That would seem to be a conclusion. which is not allowed in WP:OR. nor is the synthesis and implied analyis of restating claims and then referencing them to the Sathya Sai Speaks series, "especially" volume 1.

i would like to add that the conclusions are similiar to, "My hypothesis is that these extraordinary claims, although dealing mainly with non-factual matters and beliefs, and therefore not verifiable, may nevertheless have a significant relationship with SSB’s previously described stories, which appear to be the products of his erroneous beliefs or his unfettered imagination." http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm and "the Sathya Sai Organisation must bear its share of the responsibility for the propagation and re-quoting of such demonstrably unreliable material, particularly when it is presented as evidence of SSB’s Divine status"

"Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba" is close "inappropriate references and ‘name-dropping’ (by SSB)" ie . Shirdi Sai Baba http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm "and his claims of Divinity" seems to be similar to "Divine claims will be reviewed in the light of a hypothesis drawn from this basic evidence, which, like the explicit claims themselves, is feeely (typo) available in the official Sathya Sai Speaks volumes." is there a conclusion ot the hypothesis? is this WP:OR?

i would also like to draw the similarity to this form of WP:OR editing to the inclusion of two paragraphs about "Love is My Form" (a book) in the biography section of the page. The subject of a biography is the person it is discussing, not a book. These paragraphs should be moved to another section moved suited to the topic (and the analysis and conclusions it implies) removed or summarised in the previous paragraph.

J929 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem so eager to use the bdsteel.tripod.com as a reference for your conspiracy theories, here is a simple question that will solve all of this, and prove that Ombudswiki is putting OR on Wikipedia. Can you offer one diff that shows that he sourced his own website to information he has put onto any Wikipedia page? I don't think so. The Shirdi Sai Baba phrase is not sourced to his own website, but to a SSB site. I'm sorry, but I don't see where you are coming up with this fanciful notion of OR. I would suggest you attack the sources and prove they are unreliable instead of continuing to attack Ombudswiki, as you have failed wholeheartedly to prove he has done anything wrong. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

the addition repeats what is already stated about Shirdi Sai Baba, and the term Divinity is included in the wikipedia article for Guru. Nothing new is addressed by the addition. the source referenced goes to the main page of discourses. does that entail readers to go through thousands of pages to find one reference to Divinity? "Especially in Volume 1, which contains translations of Discourses delivered during the years 1953 to 1960. See http://www.sssbpt.info/english/sssvol01.html " especially in volume 1. i do not see any specific references. if you want to fix the reference, you can read volume one and add specifics. offering an entire volume for a reference implies to find the conclusion ones self, which is speculation until the point is proven.
WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." the edit seems suspicious as it references the Sathya Sai Speaks books directly. (much like the Love is My Form paragraphes) i thought wikipedia references were held until the references section. why are the books referenced to rather the subject? is a conclusion being drawn? if so, even so slighty, that is original research.
what does your "one question" have to do with the subject? if someone references their own site that is COI, is it not? if someone implies a conclusion in an edit that is speculation and original research. which is not part of wikipedia policy, especially in a BLP.

J929 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

where is it printed (a reliable source) that volume 1 contains more "claims" by Sai Baba. If there is no source for this conclusion, then it is original research. having the read the material is good but to make your own conclusions through analysis (and add those conclusions in an article) is WP:OR.

ombudswiki writes,

• "I tried to fill that gap by referring directly to the official web pages and books which have endorsed and made this information freely available to the public for many years." then mention only the Sathya Sai Speaks series (without implying claims)
• "In the original paragraph (prior to my addition), this is also potentially misleading, because readers may assume that this is the only relevant assertion or claim by Sathya Sai Baba," the reference to Shirdi Sai Baba was mentioned because of the common knowledge about the relation of Sathya Sai Baba to the name Sai Baba, and Sai Baba of Shirdi. the statement holds no conclusion other than that what has already been stated by Sathya Sai Baba himself.

to corelate his discourses to claims and his devotees acceptance (or not) of his words is an analysis, and unless there is a reliable source that states this, it is WP:OR.

i dont think that these statements should be a platform for original research or POVs. if Sathya Sai Baba has said that he is the re-incarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba then i think it is incorrect to say he "claims" it as the 'claim' can not be proven (he is or he is not). he has said it and the wording of the article should reflect that and its acceptance by his devotees is another topic altogether.

maybe more suited to the Sathya Sai Baba movement page.

J929 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Once again, what a surprise. Everyone needs to go an read 3RR again as a couple of editors went way past that and have consequently been blocked. The article is fully protected for 3 days. Make sure that you discuss this matter BEFORE making changes to the article. It is not sufficient to post a message on the talk page and then go ahead and make a change which is likely to be controversial. It is necessary to wait a reasonable amount of time for other editors to engage and discuss, especially when the change made gets immediately reverted. With all the history of this article everyone should know better and the edit summaries clearly display that editors knew that they were engaging in an edit war.Mfield (Oi!) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm Trial

• The new RS discussion has ended with out arriving at any conclusion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain .
• The new RS discussion started with a wrong link unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article. There was no proper discussion nor proper conclusion nor any recommendation. It was more like argument between two parties with out arriving at any conclusion.
• RS board is the golden standard in wikipedia. The new WP:RS discussion failed to arrive at any clear conclusion hence the earlier RS discussion recommendation must be given its due weightage.
• The earlier RS discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question was discussed for a week by independent wikipedians not involved with this 'Sathya Sai Baba' article. The discussion was rational, logical and they arrived at proper conclusions after a week of discussion. It has to be given its due weightage.

Why is this source important to the Sathya Sai Baba article?

• Earlier RS discussion had a detailed discussion about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' covered in the Daily Pioneer article unlike the new RS discussion.
• In the 'Alaya Rahm' 2006 trial which was filed in the 'Superior Court of California' did n't find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba as alleged by 'Alaya Rahm' in the earlier 2004 BBC documentary.
• As per the 2006 'Alaya Rahm' trial - Alaya Rahm cannot file another law suit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India.
• Earlier RS discussion clearly mentioned that removing the Pioneer article while leaving the BBC allegations will result in BLP violation to the article subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.

• Comments from Priyanath in the RS discussion: To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP.

The other source referred above is the 'Daily Pioneer' article covering the 'Alaya Rahm trial' whose allegations were main part of the BBC documentary. :::

• This BLP issue should be fixed in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as per the earlier RS recommendation.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you include on the talk page a list of the facts from the Daily Pioneer article that you feel are important? There are definitely things from the Pioneer that I think belong in the article if they are true. However, I don't trust the Pioneer, so I would like to look for another source that covers them. If we can find alternate sources for the facts you want to include, then we can all be happy. As a beginning, I think it is important that people reading the article know that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of abuse. Bhimaji (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, We have a couple of options to resolve this issue with out getting into edit wars.

• Either we remove the 'BBC material which covered the 'Alaya Rahm allegations' completely as concluded by the earlier RS board discussion. Then there will be no need to include the part of the 'Daily Pioneer referencing the 'Alaya Rahm case' if there is no mention of 'Alaya Rahm' in the article.
• The second solution is to mention the fact that there was indeed a real trial by Alaya Rahm in the 'Superior Court of California' in 2006 and the verdict that 'Alaya Rahm cannot file another case on Sathya Sai Baba for the same sexual abuse charges either in US or in India and also that they did n't find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba. This could be supported by the Superior Court of California website covering the Alaya Rahm case as mentioned in the earlier RS discussion. Also the journal article mentioned in media.radiosai.org could be used as further reference to this case. The media.radiosai.org is official website and has already been used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• The other important refutations from 'The Daily Pioneer' conclusions such as 'However neither Sathya Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sathya Sai Baba or his organisations' could be rephrased and supported again from the same article from media.radiosai.org.
• The basic idea is to include the facts. The 'Alaya Rahm trial' has to be mentioned if the BBC reference with 'Alaya Rahm allegations' is left in the article. Removing only the refutations from the Daily Pioneer but leaving the BBC allegations will be a BLP violation as mentioned in the earlier RS discussion.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. There has been a ridiculous amount of discussion over this one piece, when it is obviously an opinion piece that doesn't present the facts in a neutral manner, but in the views of the writer (not that a news piece won't present the facts in a completely neutral way, but it wouldn't have the opinion of the writer in it.) Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We don't do our own interpretations of primary sources (see WP:NOR) and we don't use crappy secondary sources to get material into the article when good secondary sources are not available (see WP:V and WP:RS). Citing court documents directly regarding living people has consistently been rejected in every case I've seen where it has ever been proposed. And an editorial column in an obscure Indian newspaper (which is what this is, regardless of its specific labeling) is nowhere close to as reliable a source as the BBC. See WP:UNDUE — articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The fact is that the accusations were published by a reliable source (the BBC), while claims about dismissal of the case, claims that nothing was proven, claims that the victim was himself guilty of various offenses, etc., were never published in a reliable source but only in a fringe editorial in a Third World country. *** Crotalus *** 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of terms like "fringe" and "third world" don't seem to be proper here. It is a reliable source with regards to the subject of the article, an Indian source, the subject's own country so it can't be labeled "obscure". This is an arrogant western viewpoint. Indians do not think of themselves as "third World" Stop comparing sources. I agree some of the statements in the Pioneer article can be taken out but the part about the case withdrawal should be in the article as well as the fact that Sai Baba has never been charged much less convicted of any crime and as of today there is nothing pending anywhere. These can not be considerd "opinions."Sbs108 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise since the source was originally deemed reliable and there still is a discussion, We leave in these two facts, Alaya Rahm Case was self-dismissed and Sai Baba has never been charged nor convicted of any crime. Simple. Serious allegations were levelled at Sai Baba. No one anywhere has any proof of anything. Because the witch hunt in western media by a few elements blasted the internet with baseless unproven allegations doesn't mean an Indian newspaper can't counter these with facts and then be called "third world" and "fringe" etc.Sbs108 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sbs108. We need to come to a compromise. There is no point in edit warring.

Was there a real trial in 2006 by 'Alaya Rahm' on Sathya Sai Baba Society as claimed in the 'Daily Pioneer'? Yes. There is enough evidence to prove there was a real trial.

• We have the 20006 Alaya Rahm case from the 'Superior Court of California' website. Alaya Rahm case link from Superior Court of California website: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
• Daily Pioneer which was declared as reliable in earlier RS is reliably sourced for stating that there was a case by 'Alaya Rahm' and that it was self dismissed. We have the link from the Superior Court website as evidence. At the same time as mentioned by Sbs108 it is enough to mention just the facts from the 'Daily Pioneer' such as 'Alaya Rahm's self dismissed his case and that Sathya Sai Baba was not found to have done any wrong doings in this case. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, there was never any consensus among uninvolved users that the Daily Pioneer editorial was reliable. Evidence was posted that Sandhya Jain has made obvious errors in regards to the U.S. legal system, and therefore cannot be said to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in this area, as required by our verifiability policy. And the link you cited does not in any way support Jain's claims. The case is described as "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" — there is no mention of any sexual offense. So this cannot be used to support the statements that are being repeatedly re-inserted into the article. Either find a credible source or leave it out. *** Crotalus *** 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Civil Cases can be filed only under existing categories depending on whether it is a problem with a Landlord or breach of contract or under Personal Injury \ Property Damage \ Others. This case was filed under the 'Property Damage and Others'. What's the problem in that? What's important is that there is a link from the 'Superior Court' website which is a real evidence to the fact that there was a case by Alaya Rahm.
• Unlike the new RS discussion in the Old RS there was clear consensus between RegentsPark and Priyanath that the 'Daily Pioneer' was reliably sourced.
• There is no point in edit-warring there has to be a consensus we will mention only important facts and leave out what's not neccessary to the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, again?

Well, I was hoping that maybe after the blocks that editors received last time that there would be more caution about embarking on another revert war, but what a surprise it's happening again. I will state it again, and for probably the last time. I am posting this here to save posting it to a whole bunch of talk pages independently. Please make sure you have established a consensus here on the talk page that the majority of people agree on BEFORE you edit the article. How difficult is that to understand? If there is a disputed consensus then clarify it. If you read 3RR you will note that it doesn't have to get to 3 edits. Revert warring is revert warring and everyone has had way too many warnings already. Please stop. The next step is likely going to be topic bans, both to keep warring editors apart and to permit other editors to continue collegial editing without constant disruption. This article will not repeatedly be protected as means to prevent infighting, at some point those editors that cannot work together will most likely be prevented from interacting, or from editing this article (and any related articles) at all. If you want to be able to contribute, you need to be able to conduct yourselves within community guidelines. Mfield (Oi!) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about new user / account

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hedmstr1 As per his / her contributions this is new user who has been in wikipedia for less than a month. But he does n't seem like a new user based on his writing and recent contributions. I am becoming more and more suspicious of this account based on his recent edits. Inspite of being a new user he has been going on a rampage of personal attacks on the 3 active editors from the 'Sathya Sai Baba article' here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=318223993&oldid=318040846 and also in his earlier talk page discussions / comments. Today he made a controversial edit here of removing this source[9], [10] inspite of all other editors trying to come on a consensus on this source here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Daily_Pioneer_covering_the_Alaya_Rahm_Trial. I also noticed that in the comments he mentioned that "There was a supreme Court Petition in India in 2002" which was mentioned earlier by another editor. I am wondering if this could be a case of multiple accounts being used by the same single user. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=315815718&oldid=315750669 - this new user referring to 'Brian Steel' books (well known ex-follower) mentioned User:Ombudswiki in brackets meaning its the same person. Although it has been unclear to all other editors working here whether 'Brian Steel' is really editing as User:Ombudswiki or not? How does this brand new editor knows for sure that 'Brian Steel' activist and ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba is indeed User:Ombudswiki? This could very well be the case of a single user using multiple accounts to advocate his views. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not for second guessing or canvassing opinion on the motivations of other editors, if you have an issue with another editor's behaviour please take it up in the appropriate venue. This talk page does not need any more drama and accusations, it is for discussing improvements to this article only. Mfield (Oi!) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Orator"

In a discourse Sai Baba says,
"He does not hesitate, hum and haw,
He does not calculate, pause and ponder,
He does not wait, waver, wander.
Collecting, selecting thoughts and words,
He seeks no notes or quotes.
He does not tarry, decorating speech
With flowery frills, dressing borrowed phrase
In shimmering gloss. He is no orator"
etc...
http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume16/sss16.pdf

if he is refering to himself, Sai Baba states "he is no orator".

BLP policy says "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
the description was removed as it may be a violation of BLP policy.

J929 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

thought for the day

Why shouldn'te we add this for daily source? [11]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.84.247 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.radiosai.org/pages/thought.asp it seems reputable considering it comes from Radio Sai... although the previous "Thought for the Day"s are archived for only 30 days and there seems to be no lasting records beyond the current 30 days. http://www.radiosai.org/pages/cal2.asp
if the pages are archived then i'd say yes, if unretrievable after 30 days, then not sure...
does the "thought for the day" come from a discourse or are they from Sathya Sai Baba daily?

J929 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer Again

If people have a problem with this source they need to bring it up again on the RS board, not give their personal opinions. The source has been there for a very long time and was deemed reliable when brought to the RS board. I find it suspicious that use:crotalus who has never contributed to the article comes in all of sudden, tries to get me banned (in bad faith) and then won't accept two small paragraphs from a source that was considered reliable when first brought up after someone questioned it. To avoid an edit war the entry from the Pioneer was cut down considerably as a compromise. If the Pioneer goes then the Alaya Rahm case goes. It needs to be stated that the case was dropped. It also needs to be stated that Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime whatsoever and there is nothing current anywhere in the world against him. The Pioneer states those very two FACTS, not opinions. The source stays until brought up on the RS board. Sbs108 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH

The fact that Sai Baba has never been charged or convicted of any crime is not open to debate. If someone can come up with proof of this let them prove it. This is what the Pioneer states. It also states that Alaya Rahm dropped the case. This is also not open to debate.Sbs108 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)