Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. [1]

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 : Jan 04 - July 05 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2 : July 05 - Jan 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive3 : Jan 06 - March 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive4 : March 06 - April 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive5 : April 06 - June 06

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

The Wikipedia:lead section of this article is the subject of discussion at User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox]

This article is the subject of wikipedia:arbitration between adverseries user:Andries and user:SSS108 Abritration is the last step in wikipedia:dispute resolution and leads to binding solutions. The main pageWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba has the following subpages Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence all editors of Wikipedia are welcome to give evidenceWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/WorkshopWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decisionAndries Andries 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

Why is there a clean up tag?

Can somebody please explain the clean up tag or I will remove it. Andries 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Another Complete Distortion Of Facts

Here is yet another complete distortion of facts by Andries. Refer to this post that references Alexander Deutsch. Andries stated:

The American psychiatrist Alexander Deutsch visited the ashram of the guru Sathya Sai Baba in India and there noted that a group of young followers interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play, just as Krishna's leelas.

Andries summarization and citation is wholly and unequivocally misleading and deceptive. Let us read Deutsch's actual words and context, which is based on his trip to SSB's ashram in the mid 1970's (Andries left out the time-frame as well):

An even more paradoxical example of rebelliousness in cult members was observable in a substantial number of Western followers of Sai Baba. Emerging from the hippie counterculture, they appeared to project their anarchic and rebellious trends on their leader and distorted his teachings which were actually quite conservative. His playfulness, seductiveness, and magic and his controversial and unorthodox postion within his own culture facilitated the projection and distortion. The holy man angrily recounted for me, in an interview, the misdeeds of the Westerners: they illegally overextended their visas; the men and women were too close to each other; they embarrassed him in front of his Indian devotees; they followed behind him in a car when he left the ashram; some women touched him; and so on. The misreading of Swami by the Western devotees is discussed further in the following section...(Following Section)...At Sai Baba's ashram, as I indicated above, the Western devotees flagrantly denied the holy man's growing disenchantment with them, which was cleary shown by his not granting them personal interviews and other indications of unfriendliness. When I told the devotees what Sai Baba had told me about his negative feelings toward them, the characteristic response was that the holy man didn't really mean what he told me, that he was telling me, a Western doctor, just what I wanted to hear, and that the whole episode was meant as a test of their faith in him. (The notion that a disconfirming event is engineered by the leader as a test of faith seems common in cult thinking.) A theological justification for their thinking was readily avaiable here too. Did not Sai Baba proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna and did not Krishna play tricks (leela) on his devoted followers?

Andries attempted to infer that Deutsch claimed that "young followers" (an age inference never suggested by Deutsch) "interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play". What Andries forgot to mention was that these "disconfirming events" were actually the Western follower's rebelliousness, their distortions of SSB's teachings and their refusal to accept SSB's negative assessment about them! Of course, none of this is relevant to SSB himself. Therefore, I am removing the entire reference on the Sathya Sai Baba and Guru articles unless Andries can justify including this reference that has nothing to do with SSB himself, but has everything to do with SSB's early Western followers in the mid 1970's. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a minor distortion if it is a distortion at all. Andries 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Andries, what does it have to do with SSB? SSS108 ^talk-email 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deutsch relates the interpretation by the follower of SSB's behavior to SSB's claims ("proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna"), so it has a lot to do with SSB. This obsveration by Deutsch is not unique. Similar observations of non-rigorious interpretations by followers of SSB's behavior were made by Tanya Datta and Matthijs van der Meer in reputable sources. Andries 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

By the way, since you are now talking, I filed an RFA involving you: Here SSS108 ^talk-email 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Recent Controversial Edit

For the record, I would like to note that Andries is adding a controversial edit that was still listed as an edit to be mediated. Although there is currently a RFA regarding Andries behavior and controversial edits on Wikipedia, he is continuing with his controversial edits despite this fact. One can only wonder why. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did You Know Answer to And

Hello And,

This was your question...

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

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

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

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

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

"Mad"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This article is the subject of wikipedia:arbitration between adversaries user:Andries and user:SSS108 Abritration is the last step in wikipedia:dispute resolution and leads to binding solutions.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba main page with the following subpages
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence all editors of Wikipedia are welcome to give evidence
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Workshop
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision

Andries 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Kreydick's Testimony

Andries is requesting a citation stating: "Kreydick's statement cannot be retrieved from the clerk of court and hence breaks wikipedia policy verifiability." It is not my fault if Andries cannot obtain these public court records. I obtained them: View Them Here. As one can see, these are actual scans to actual public court records. Therefore, I suggest Andries take out his request for citation. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How did you get them then? If they can only obtained from a lawyer, but not from court records then they are not public records and this breaks Wikipedia:verifiability. Please give a contact address where I can get these records. Andries 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No lawyer can give out court records that are not public. I obtained them the same way I obtained the self-dismissed court records. You do the homework yourself. I provided actual scans to these public court records and if you do not accept them, that is your problem. Not mine. Remove your demand for a citation or I will. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to to provide an address where I can obtain Kreydick's statement from public records then I will remove it because this would break Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 03:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I amended 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you get the opinion of other editors. I already provided scans to public court records that come from a certified shorthand reporter for the court. That's all I need to do to support this reference. You have the scans in front of your face and deny them because you couldn't obtain them. That is your problem. Not mine. Ask the court how to obtain them. I am not your secretary. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that you refuse to give an address where I can retrieve the statement from Kreydick from public records? It is your problem, not mine, to give an address, because information in Wikipedia needs to be Wikipedia:verifiability. If I used information from a book then I also have to give at least a book title and author name and preferrably ISBN nr. This is the responsibility of the person adding contents to the article, not the responsibility wishing to verify what is written. Andries 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you have problems reading? The name of the court is clearly stated on the records. They have a website. Do the research yourself. 1+1=2 SSS108 ^talk-email 04:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, others have tried before to get Kreydick's statement from the court but failed, nevertheless I will try get it too from the court [2]. Andries 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Court records are easily accessible in the US, Andries. You just contact the court clerk. and ask You can do that online at: https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/OnlineServices/CivilImages/index.asp. Concerning your tone of voice, and given the ArbCom case, I friendly suggestion would be that you guys disengage until the ArbCom case makes its ruling. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my tone? I did not use not a single unfriendly word. I used the word please. Why do we have to disengage until the arbcom makes a decision? I sincerely cannot understand. Andries 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) amended 05:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Therefore, the citation is being removed pending an actual inquiry not based on speculation or un-named "others" questionable efforts. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, others have tried to verify the court record and they were unable to do so. Andries 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries, usually when someone blames another person for breaking Wikipedia policy, they cite factual data (including names). Care to tell me the name to these "other people" and how they allegedly tried to verify the court records? SSS108 ^talk-email 07:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I subscribed to http://www.courtca.com/home.html - which website claims to be the No. 1 search facility for all US Court Records and I searched extensively for any depositions made in the Alaya Rahm case. My username there was dc98fd. No record of any deposition by Lewis Kreydick was found, not any reference whatever to the name of Lewis Kreydick. I contacted the support service of Court Records at detective@supporthelp.net for assistance, but they were also unable to find the materials I was seeking. Further, the data is not available on any other website found where US Court Records are available, such as at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0 when the correct case number is entered (i.e. 05CC01931). None of the Keydrick materials are formally available court documents, since - as is clear from the Court Record of self-dismissal by A. Rahm - they were not presented in court and the case was dropped. Therefore they are privy to the plaintiff and defendents and their lawyers, which means they are not official, independent sources. A signed statement from the Clerk of Court that these depositions can be regarded as official and public would otherwise be required. All these references should therefore be removed from the Sathya Sai Baba Wiki page. ProEdits 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ProEdits, did you request the actual court records? I did and I got Kreydicks deposition with my request. Therefore, your internet search is trumped by my actual request, which included Kreydics video-taped deposition. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In order to maintain transparency, ProEdits is Robert Priddy, an Anti-Sai Activist who happens to be a very close associate of Andries Ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears, once again, that I have to do the footwork since Andries and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) do not know how to properly search for court records. Go to the Superior Court Of California Website → Click on Case Info → Click On "Case" → Enter the Case Number: 05cc01931 → All of the pertinent information about Alaya Rahm's self-dismissed court case are provided. No "subscription" needed. Using Priddy's faulty method, one cannot get any court records whatsoever. I would duplicate this information, but it is prohibited by the terms and conditions on the court case website. I hope this puts to rest Anti-Sai Activist's relentless attempts to remove this information even though actual scans to actual court records have been provided by me to back up this self-dismissed lawsuit. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

user:ProEdits did very serious effort to verify Kreydick's deposition and was unable to do so, incl. extensive e-mail correspondence to the court archive contact persons. Therefore the Kreydick's deposition breaks Wikipedia:verifiability and I have given the article a warning. Andries 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, Kreydick's deposition is not listed with the method that you described hereabove. Andries 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the court records are provided. You have to pay for them and request them to see them. I got the records and provided actual scans and you still say they are not verfiable. That is your problem, not mine. Robert Priddy made great efforts and ended up empty handed. I found the relevant information within a couple of minutes. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ProEdits did pay for access to the court archives and was unable to verify Kreydick's deposition. Andries 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on ProEdits comments, he was unable to verify any court records. Not just Kreydicks (take a look at the link he provided). And as I said before, I have the actual court records. I scanned them and provided them here and you still say they are unverfiable. Of course, you are upset about this because it argues against your POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that using the method listed above, under "Register Of Actions", there is a "Stipulation - Other" that happened on 3/16/2006, which happens to be the exact date for Kreydick's deposition Ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ProEdits had extensive communication with the court clerks but he was unable to retrieve the depositions from them. How did you retrieve the deposition? Andries 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ProEdits did not have extensive communication with the court clerks. He tried to obtain the court record information from court-record sites and apparently failed. As I have already shown, the court-record information exists and can be requested because they are now public record. I have already given you all the information you need to obtain the records. Next, you'll be asking me to purchase them for you. I have provided all details and even scans and you demand more. This is your problem, not mine. If you think you are right, time to get opinions from other editors and find a consensus. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not provide enough information to retrieve the deposition. ProEdits did serious but unsuccessful efforts to get it. I am still waiting for an answer from you to my question how you got the deposition? Andries 07:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Times reference

The reference provided for the last edit is from Rick Ross' website and does not have any information about the original source. The citation is referred to be from The Times, but The Times archive does not have such article. See: [[3]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It really was an article in [The Times]], see e.g. here, here and hereAndries 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) amended 22:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the article itself meantions the names of The Times three times. Andries 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As the link from The Times is dead (see: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-2001295208,00.html ), then we need to use the proper format for the cite as per WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_Say_where_you_got_it, as you do not seem to have seen the original article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Freelanceresearch 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating.... What should we do about that article? It may not cross the threshold for verifiability... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

what do u mean not verifiable? U can check the hard copy of the Times of that date. Andries 16:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How? Let's ask Freelanceresearch. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's true. That article is not listed in The Times archive. Only two are: Click on "Free Search". Do a search for "suicide, sex and the guru" and nothing shows up. Therefore Andries, unless you can provide a verifiable reference, it is going to be removed as per Wikipedia:verifiability (which you should have no problem with considering your standards in upholding Wikipedia:verifiability: See Court Record Discussion. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

it can only be removed it if you or somebody else was unable to find it in the hardcopy archives of the Times. Andries 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean that it has be accessible online. Andries 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you google on the name of the article then it is clear that it used to be available online. Online copies can be found e.g here. [4] Andries 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Times provides summaries to archived articles. That article is not listed. The other two are. So it not in their archives and you cannot prove it exists. The links you cited do not provide a means to verify the article. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to prove its existence. The article only has to be verifiable You can verify its existence and contents by checking the hardcopy of the Times. Andries 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, unless its existence is disputed. In which case the burden to provide a way to verify the source is on the editor adding the material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting policy. I gave a date, name, publication, and author. This makes it verifiable to anyone who is willing to do the effort. Andries 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SSS108. The two articles listed for that date do not match the title of the one claimed so we have no proof of the actual date of that article. The url date (2001295442) looks like it may have been the 29th of May, not 27th of August but since it is not in the archives it cannot be proven and why it is missing is a mystery, if in fact it existed. Contacting the author may be the only way to find out the true status of that article. Freelanceresearch 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not inclined to believe Andries. After all, he got the name to Premanand's book completely wrong and left it that way for many months. The fact remains that 2 out of 3 of Dominic Kennedy's articles have been and can be verified by The Times archive. One cannot. That means it is not in their archive which casts doubts on it's origins and verifiability. How to request the article from The Times to verify it when it is not in their archives? When it came to Kreydicks deposition, Andries immediately wanted it removed based on the word of his cronies (he didn't even research it himself) even though I provided all the relevant information and scans to the actual documents. Now he is arguing for the inclusion of an article that cannot be verified from it's alleged official source (i.e., The Times). This shows how Andries flip-flops on the standards he uses when it comes to material that argues in favor of his POV. It is my intent to remove the source unless Andries can provide information that verifies it. So far, the title, date and newspaper name have yielded no verifiable results. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof that the article exists is only on me when other editors did serious but unsuccessful effort to verify it. Please contact the Times first or check the hardcopies of the Times. I read the article when it came out and there are several independent sources that mention the article without disputing its existence. Andries 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the burden of proof is on you. Why aren't you attempting to get the hard copy? Once again (not sure how many times I have to say this) one cannot request the hard copy from The Times because it is not in their archives to request. Maybe we need a Dutch translator to make it clearer? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu ritual oiling genitals?

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

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

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

Sorry but I haven't seen any proof from credible sources that Sai Baba is "oiling" genitals. Credible sources I know say oil is put below the navel (emotional center) and that is all. Many healers use oil. I use it in healings all the time. Message therapists use it. It is well known that oil has conductive properties. Only people with dirty minds want to make something sexual of it.Freelanceresearch 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some proof voiced in reputable sources. Even the Dutch SSO admitted it (in an article by Wim van Dijk) in their offical newsletter for members. Oiling gentitals by SSB of young men is so common that it cannot be seriously denied anymore. Andries 09:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Footnotes and refs

Any reason that takes up half the article? Can the notes be summarized?Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to do it a bit, but I have been repeatedly accused of selective and out-of-context citing. Selective and out-of-context citing can be verified and corrected easily if the citations are long. Andries 08:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

And archiving the talk page seems also needed.

Pjacobi 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you reference your comments, Pjacobi? Most of the "giant citations" were added by Andries. I also noticed the broke refs and was going to try to remedy it when I had the time. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I enlarged the citations to counter the repeated accusations against me of out-of-context and selective citations. Andries 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I did not break the references as Pjocobi implied. It was done by Askolnick ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

May be the lawsuits should go out of the article

See WP:BLP "Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source."Andries 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Andries specifically has an agenda to remove any information that argues against his Anti-Sai POV. This self-dismissed legal suit compromises many of the arguments made in other references in the article and I will not agree to its removal. The court records are reliable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have they been reported by a verifiable secondary source? Andries 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to be. They are publicly available and verifiable. Court records are cited throughout Wikipedia without being referenced to a secondary source. You will have to seek a change of policy first. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? You mean that you do not want to follow WP:BLP? Andries 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are trying to do Andries. I think we need other editors to weigh in before you attempt to interpret Wikipedia policy to suit and push your POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a Wikipedia:Request for comments about this dispute. If this yields as usual no result then we can try mediation again and then an arbcom case again, though the previous one has not yet ended. Andries 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the specific issue in question here? --Alecmconroy 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of the lawsuit by Alaya Rahm versus the Sathya Sai Bookshop. This may not be in accordance with WP:BLP, because it has not been reported by verifiable secondary sources. The information is only sourced to the court recorrds. Andries 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the court case Sathya_Sai_Baba#Self-Dismissed_Court_Case. Andries 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See how sloppy Andries is with his facts? He and his group of Anti-Sai Activists have tried to change the facts and push their bias by saying "Sathya Sai Bookshop" instead of the actual name cited in court records "Sathya Sai Baba Society". The Society is more than just a bookstore and Andries is trying to push the very same bias on this site that he and his associates push on their Anti-Sai-Baba sites (proving once again that Andries cannot factually relate information without slanting it with his own POV). Alaya Rahm made very serious allegations against Sathya Sai Baba in the following references: Divine Downfall, Secret Swami, Seduced and India Today. It is relevant that a lawsuit Alaya Rahm filed and pursued for 16 months was self-dismissed by him with prejudice. Despite rampant claims by Anti-Sai-Baba sites (like the one run by Andries) to there being numerous victims, not even one single victim came forward to support or defend Alaya Rahm. His legal suit belly-flopped. Therefore, this information (taken from actual court records) is wholly relevant to the serious allegations made in the Sathya Sai Baba article and it should be included on the premise that these court records are reliable sources and verfiable. Andries and ProEdits (both Anti-Sai-Baba Activists) want this information removed because it severely compromises the agenda they wish to push on Wikipedia and on their Anti-Sai-Baba Sites (ProEdits has no less than 3 Anti-Sai Sites to his name and had 6 others deleted for defamatory content). SSS108 ^talk-email 12:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the accusations by Alaya Rahm have been reported by verifiable secondary sources unlike the court case that you want to include has not been. Interpreting primary sources is a difficult matter and should be left to responsible persons. It will be clear that I consider you highly incompetent and irresponsible in interpretating information related to SSB.[User:Andries|Andries]] 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This from someone who's website was threatened with a lawsuit for defamatory content (admittedly: ref)! SSS108 ^talk-email 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What has this to do with the dispute or the article. ? Andries 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with your personal attack against me, i.e., "I consider you highly incompetent and irresponsible in interpretating information related to SSB". SSS108 ^talk-email 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is closely related to the dispute in question. You should not include primary sources in the article for stated reasons. Andries 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the standard that will be implemented, it will be implemented across the board. Including the removal of the reference to Priddy from the primary source Kevin Shepherd, which has never been referenced by reliable secondary sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Shepherd is a reliable secondary source reporting on Priddy's writings. Andries 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response

I don't see in the current version citations to the court records, nor have I found such in the history I've reviewed. We have instead citations to California statutes - those do not prove that the court case even happened. To cite anything based on the court cases, we need citations to the court case records. Per the guideline on relable sources, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." [Emphasis in original.] Unless/until the court documents and records are published by a reliable publisher - which for legal records would be a publisher that publishes all cases for a given jurisdiction, we can't use material from the court documents. As there is no such citation at this time, the relevant clause of WP:BLP is "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion." I will therefore remove the material as not adequately sourced. Should citations to the court records, as published by a reliable publisher, become available, this evaluation will no longer be relevant. GRBerry 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, actual scans to the court records have been referenced here for others to verify: Ref 1 and Ref 2. These were obtained from the Court itself. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, can you please tell me how the the court records from Kreydick can be obtained? Serious but unsuccessful efforts were undertaken to verify the information. Andries 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Those links are not to a reliable publisher of court documents, they are to an activist site. Look for a site like findlaw.com, Lexis.com, or a print media court record like the United States Reports that covers a wide array of cases. That is what a reliable publisher means in this context, especially since WP:BLP says to "Be very firm about high-quality references". Other reliable secondary sources could be cited, if there was press coverage. When I removed the material, there wasn't even a reliable citation to prove that a court case occurred. GRBerry 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Andries. I have told you numerous times. I am not going to repeat myself yet again. ProEdits did not even ask for the records from the proper court! He attempted to get it from secondary sources, i.e., online court-record sites. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material was obtained from the court, that copy in an editors hands would not be "published by a reliable publisher" as required by WP:RS. GRBerry 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but there was extensive communication with the court but the court was not able to provide Kreydick's deposition. What is the name of the court official (and e-mail address) that I should contact? Andries 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you have a mental block or something? There was NO "extensive communication with the court". ProEdits cited the sources for his alleged investigation and they are NOT from any "actual court". They are from online court-record websites. Get your facts right and stop trying to distort the facts with inaccurate statements. The court record number on Kreydick's deposition is exactly the same as the self-dismissed lawsuit from Alaya Rahm. It is part of the same record. If you don't understand English, I suggest you have someone translate this for you. I already provided the link to the court site in question and I will not spoon-feed you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I e-mailed with ProEdits and others and he told me that there was extensive communication with the court. Can you please tell me whom from the court I should contact to get Kreydick's deposition? Andries 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again: Reference. And if Priddy really had extensive communication with the court, you should be providing me with information that Priddy sent you to see if he really did. Apparently, neither of you know which court to talk to. That much is clear. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Kreydick's deposition cannot be verified with that information and hence should be removed for violation of WP:V. Andries 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

SSS108, please do not let your frustration get the best of you. Please remain WP:CIVIL in addressing fellow editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, how would you suggest resolving this issue? Andries is repeating himself like a broken record, saying that the court records are not verfiable when neither he or ProEdits has even contacted the correct court! Despite providing full information about the court records, Andries just sits there demanding information, ad nauseam, that I have already provided to him over and over again. I have contacted the court, got the records, provided full scans. How much more do I have to do to verify the material? The citation of these court records fulfills the requirements as described by GRBerry. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, SSS108 you misrepresented the matter. The court was contacted by ProEdits and others and the deposition cannot be verified with the information that you provided. Andries 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, please tell me how and whom you contacted in the court to get the deposition. Andries 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Say what you like Andries. The fact remains that I could not have obtained these court records except through the court. I made the effort and got the records. You have not. Period. End of discussion. ProEdits never mentioned contacting the court directly. Now you are claiming he has although you cannot even tell me the name to the correct court (as evidenced by your ceaseless requests for contact information). SSS108 ^talk-email 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you contact the court? We were unable to verify the deposition. Andries 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

-SERVICE LIST

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

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

ProEdits, your personal attacks comprised of defamatory and slanderous comments against me have been removed. If you persist in these defamatory attacks, I will file a complaint againt you on Wikipedia. I suggest you talk to Andries about reliable sources. It does not matter what your original research allegedly uncovered about Bill Aitken. The fact remains that a reliable source published information stating that Bill Aitken is a expert on comparative religion [5]. Therefore, it can be referenced as such. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is one person who has no right to complain about slanderous attacks then it is SSS108. Your whole website consist of slanderous ad hominem attack. Andries 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike your site, my site has never been threatened with legal action for defamatory content. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the statement by user:ProEdits that user:SSS108 inappropriately removed under the pretext of removing a personal attack against him hereunder. Andries

Not one of these documents includes any depositions by the Sathya Sai Society, OR ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH A DEPOSITION. Lewis Kreydick was not named in any of the documents. I have scans of all the documents, as paid for to the Clerk of Orange County Court. The person who provided them withholds his name because he does not wish to have it defamed on the web and Google and elsewhere on the web by Gerald Moreno - as is constantly being done by him (see http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/130serious_defamation_attempt.htm) to other critics of Sai Baba.

Despite his protestations, Moreno has almost certainly been provided the depositions - and not least the video materials with Kreydick he has also posted - by persons (such as their lawyers) acting on behalf of the Sathya Sai Society, probably the Sathya Sai Society's member and chief lawyer - Robert M. Baskin - who is also on record as referring to the matter in very similar terms to Moreno (see Radio Sai's page at http://media.radiosai.org/Journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/collapse-of-calumny.htm) On the other hand, if Moreno has a signed receipt proving that he obtained these documents from the Orange County Court, he should provide a scan of it. The scan will then be sent to the Clerk of Court, with whom we are in touch by phone, for verification of its authenticity. Until such time as genuine proof is provided that these depositions are independently available from the Clerk of Court, the references to Kreydick will be removed. User:ProEdits 03-Sept.-06

Since Andries restored these personal attacks against me, I will defend myself: Exposing The Lies, Deceit And Dishonesty Of Robert Priddy aka "ProEdits". SSS108 ^talk-email 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page has not yet fully degenerated into to making abuse into an art form as is the case in yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 but we are almost there. Keep trying. :) Andries 19:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You have had every opportunity to keep the discussion on course and you have instead chose the path of personal attacks. You have no one else to blame but yourself. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Bill Aitken's status is not that of an 'expert on comparative religion' - there is absolutely no proof. Moreno has no answer to this fact, so it has been removed again, and will continue to be removed until any reasonable proof may be forthcoming.--84.208.99.96 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

This appears to me to be an attempt to remove information on a technicality, a technicality which actually warrants the inculsion of this material. It appears to have been cited by a secondary source. Anything not verified to the above mentioned sources should be pruned mercilessly, but attempts to remove the cited material are little more than vandalism. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

what secondary source? Andries 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that Priddy and Andries are "demanding" documentation concerning the court case (which has been provided and according to the Calumny article verified by Robert Baskin, a licensed attorney) when we have been asking them to provide documentation concerning the alleged affidavits they've been claiming to have and chiming about for years but can never come up with! Talk about duplicitous and hypocritical. Let's see you guys walk your talk for once instead of trying to have it all your way and playing your continuous mind games with regard to the rules.Freelanceresearch 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I suggest you talk to Priddy about reliable sources. Be very careful about letting Priddy set a precedent about trying to remove reliable sources and substitute it with his original research. I can similiarly make arguments against many of the Anti-Sai references in this article. If Priddy wants to set a precedent, then it should be applied to other references as well. Priddy should also not be editing this article so arbitrarily without any form of consensus from other editors. The comment about Aitken was not made by me. It was made by "The Week" article Ref. Priddy is not a journalist and he cannot cite any reliable sources to counter the views expressed in this source. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also going to be contacting the court myself on Tuesday. Monday is a holiday here in the USA. I also want to point out how Andries has no problem when ProEdits (Robert Priddy) removes referenced material but raises a huge fuss when others do it with his sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I attributed the statement about Bill Aitken. Andries 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Andries, the article is going to be reverted. I will not leave this issue alone. Your reason for removing the Court Case information is contrary to GRBerry's statements. You, as an Anti-Sai Activist who is the "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet have an agenda to push on Wikipedia. I have fulfilled all of GRBerry's criteria and provided actual scans to actual court records. Just becuase you and ProEdits have not been able to verify the records (in the last 2 days or so) is no reason to remove it. I have been able to verify it and provided scans to back it up. Neither you or ProEdits can provide any attested statements from anyone from the court stating the documents do not exist. They do exist and here they are: Ref 1 & Ref 2. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As usual you are completely wrong. You did not fulfill GRberry's criteria of providing secondary verifiable sources reporting on the court case: it has never been reported by reputable sources other than the court. It is also untrue that we have been only busy with trying to get the court data for the last two days. We have been trying this for months. Andries 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It is not our business - a SSS108 [Gerald Moreno] sophistically claims - to provide any attested statements from anyone from the court stating the documents do not exist. We do not deny their existence, but we assert they have not been released as public information BY THE COURT, hence as independent sources (i.e. not as Sai Baba propaganda on Sai-devoted web pages). Even so, the deposition of Kreydick is not even central to the case. and played no part whatever in the decision to drop the litigation - the fact is that it was discontinued voluntarily due to what can be termed legal technicalities. The real 'smoking gun' in the Alaya Rahm lawsuit is found at http://www.saiguru.net/english/news/060730_Alaya_Rahm_lawsuit.htm where the real reasons for the self-dismissal are stated. So far I am still unconvinced due to lack of reliable evidence that the depositions made by the Sathya Sai Society are independently available as public documents. THAT is the entire issue... it is quite simple to understand if one is not blinded by bias and wilful obstructionism. IF they have been released by consent of the judge as is required according to the Court website, then they are public documents. They are NOT available on the Internet according to the statement "At this time documents imaged or electronically filed are not available via this application." [see https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPub/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&personNbr=21629&src=case_src_dt] A representative of the exposé visited the Court and obtained on payment of a fee what he understood was ALL the documents concerning Alaya Rahm available there (as already stated above). We are not the ones who need to be careful - empty threats are not the stock in trade of Sai critics - as we do not break the laws on slander as Freelanceresearch has done on Yahoo groups sathyasaibaba2 endlessly(as conscientiousobjector2000)... As usual, she makes big claims without anything that can be called supporting evidence - circumstantial or otherwise, as is seen above. I am stating fact, not slander without using derogatory terms like 'sleazy'. My web pages shows masses of independent sources - see http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/index.htm --ProEdits 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to correct my former statement that Lisa de Witt was banned from Wikipedia. I find I was misinformed by someone who commented thus, but - having checked thoroughly - I find no evidence of it. I am removing my unfortunate mistake. Interesting that Lisa de Witt admits that she and Moreno are co-responsible for the mean-spirited atmosphere here - this was also obvious long, long before I entered this page with some fairly restrained comments about them. However, Moreno was banned, n'est ce pas? Now Moreno and de Witt can rail on here and on Yahoo groups about how Priddy actually made a mistake and admitted it!--84.208.99.96 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Block Log For Freelanceresearch. Freelanceresearch has never been "banned from Wikipedia". Another shameless lie from ProEdits (Robert Priddy). SSS108 ^talk-email 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) gets his facts wrong, once again. The link cited does not provide the text to any of the court records. As stated before, under "Register Of Actions", there is a "Stipulation - Other" that happened on 3/16/2006, which happens to be the exact date for Kreydick's deposition. I will contact the court myself tomorrow (today is a holiday). In Robert Priddy's (aka ProEdits) response (under the guise of "JuST"), he gets the facts completely wrong about Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed Court Case and I have given a Scathing Response To Him & JuST. "JuST" never said anything about Kreydick's deposition not existing or being part of the court record (unless the article was updated). As a matter of fact, the Rahm Family treated my comments about Kreydick's deposition as if he actually gave testimony and the deposition existed. The Rahm's never said anything about Kreydick not giving a deposition. Not even one word. More lies from Anti-Sais. For example, Priddy (under the guise of "JuST") said the court case was heard by the Judge on April 28th 2006 despite the fact that the case was self-dismissed by Alaya Rahm on April 17th 2006 (Reference). Just one of many significant errors and untruths propagated by ProEdits and Andries. I would also like to point out that neither Andries or ProEdits (Robert Priddy) made any reference to the County Court Of Orange before I provided the link (which occurred a couple days ago). Before I posted this information, the cited references were to online court records that did not mention the County Court Of Orange. Therefore, they have not been in contact with anyone from the County Court Of Orange for "months", as Andries erroneously contended. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Why Moreno also repeats his argument about the existence of the Kreydick deposition is beyond me – I have to my knowledge never denied its existence. The question is whether it is available to the public as a document from the independent County Court. Let us see whether this – despite all our efforts to obtain it – nevertheless can be proved. Moreno has not – as requested – proved that he obtained the deposition from the County Court, such as in the form of a signed receipt for payment… rather than from the defendants or their representatives. This is a crucial fact as to sourcing this material. Who told him of the existence of this case and the materials so quickly – when only the lawyers, the judge and the plaintiffs and defendants knew about it? Nothing was printed about it or found with any obvious search terms using Google. Was he not informed of it and how to come by the court documents by the Sathya Sai Society or their proxies? It is fair to comment here too, that – as the Sathya Sai Society is well aware - Moreno has from the start gone to great lengths to attack and undermine Alaya Rahm’s allegations of being sexually abused by Sai Baba, also defending Dr. Goldstein and the Society. Yet Alaya Rahm’s allegations stand as ever, and the BBC has promulgated them worldwide without Sai Baba’s supporters being able to raise a case against them, though they tried legal threats to broadcasters in the US and Canada.

I am a member of the International JuST Group, and was not acting “under the guise of JuST” – there was a JuST working committee of 9 persons, conferring with the Rahm family and their lawyer, Brelsford. The date of the court case given was not provided by me. I can’t be bothered to check it even as it is of so little significance, except to Moreno and Co., of course. Moreno is trying to minimise the major import of the statement which shows that the Kreydick evidence was totally irrelevant in the decision to dismiss the case. Moreno and the Sai authorities are trying to make out that this was so – it is a clever ploy, no doubt. But is not truthful and certainly not proper material for an encyclopedia, in my view. What does jossi say to that? As to the exact date of the first approach by our team to the County Court, it was about two months ago, despite Moreno’s false conclusion from the fact it was not mentioned here earlier. This is no big deal. --ProEdits 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone of this conversation...

...Is way off:

1. Wikipedia is not a battleground of ideas or opinions. See WP:NOT;
2. we deal with each other with civility and respect. See WP:CIVIL;
3. and we do not engage in personal attacks. See WP:NPA

If you are unable to abide by these policies, you would be better off not participating. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with jossi’s comment here. However, since I have been attacked so heavily here and on other Wiki talk pages, [including the Robert Priddy Wiki page] - with repeated links to utterly slanderous pages made against me by Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno (SSS108)- and since Wikipedia is so far chronically unable to remove such texts or block these attacks once and for all, I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me, and not least also in defense of one who have suffered terribly at the hands of Sai Baba (Alaya Rahm) and will be further injured by a subjective account by a Sai follower, if it is not truly an independent public document. Is it not fair - under these circumstances - to point this out? --ProEdits 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

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

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

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

How to proceed?

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

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

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

However, the question is how anyone can write an objective article on Sathya Sai Baba who has not studied his words fully and deeply, or had direct experience of his life and activities, which are a subject of the greatest controversy?

Ahem, I assume you were too busy editing this article to learn something about what's Wikipedia is about, for example in the Wikipedia:Introduction: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia....

And an encyclopedia not only doesn't do original research, it abhors all creativity, direct experience, and then some. Good, and concise style would be welcome, and that's most lacking here.

In a nutshell, an encyclopedia article has to reproduce something that is already written elsewhere, and this doesn't mean a newspaper clipping here, a blog posting there and some court proceedings to top it.

Were it not for problems of copyright infringement (and for balancing, if even the scholars disagree), you should be able to pinpoint one book or one article in a scientific journal, of which the entire Wikipedia article is summary.

Every attempt to create something better, than any existing book or article, however well-meaning it may be, is totally misguided. If you aiming for this, you have to publish elsewhere, e.g. in WikInfo or on your own homepage.

In short: Don't connect the dots!

Reality check: Yes, I know, there is plenty of stuff on en.wikipedia which is in violation of those principles of encyclopedic writing, but I will not tolerate this as an excuse. Even I cannot fight in 1,5 millions articles simultanously.

Pjacobi 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Far be it for ProEdits to accuse others of "slander" when he has done the very same with Sathya Sai Baba, devotees and proponents (including myself). Unlike him, I can fully substantiate my claims with his actual words, links, references, caches and screen-captures. I don't engage in conspiracy theories, unverifiable speculations and presumptions of guilt as he has done. I do not wish to prolong this off-topic discussion and I will end it here if ProEdits agrees. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)