Talk:Robert Priddy/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Archives: 01

Warning that some actions are in violation of the arbitration ruling

Hi, as a matter of courtesy I advise you that your insertion of a certain link to Robert Priddy [1] is, in my view and that of other administrators, in violation of the arbitration ruling Sathya Sai Baba. I advise you to avoid re-inserting that link on articles or talk pages. The arbitration ruling is actionable; repeatedly defying it may result in your being blocked for disruption. --User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Reference SSS108 talk-email 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to the above comment by Tony Sidaway, I am not agreeing to the mediation request. This issue has already been resolved by ArbCom. SSS108 talk-email 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Selected For Deletion

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Priddy. Primary reasons this article nominated for deletion:

  • Non Notable.
  • Fails WP:RS
  • Fails WP:BIO
  • Self-promotion
  • Vanity article
  • Priddy created his own page [2] (esp. to push a personal agenda against his former guru).
  • Has not been referenced in any reputable or reliable sources.

SSS108 talk-email 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some references: A long reference to my 1968 work 'Objectivity in the Study of Human Society' (available at Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo) is published in 'Sociologiska teorier', edited by Johan Asplund Stockholm 1967 - ISBN 91-20-02381-2. (non-digitalised). A scan of the relevant passage and a translation [from the Swedish] is found at Secondly, a published reference to my sociological research project 1968-1972 is given in 'Sosiologisk Årbok 2000.1, "Kritikkens fenomenologi" p. 274 by Professor Per Otnes also on-line at ( ISSN 0808-288X.
Since I have not previously provided information on some of my book contributions and many published articles, an additional list may help establish that I have been and still am an active writer in independent works and journals. Since Google Book search can only search books that have been digitized by Google, the list is neither comprehensive nor definitive. Therefore I provide scans of non-digitised materials.
1) 'Filosofisk Hjelpebok', published by Universitetsforlaget (Oslo University Press) in 1975 - ISBN 82-00-01479-7 See
2) Details of 3 articles on R.D.Laing/psychiatry that were published in the Norwegian journal 'Kontrast' are seen on the page
3) Foreword to 'Det Spaltede selv' by R.D. Laing (trans. from 'The Divided Self') is from 1968, Gyldendahl Forlag, Oslo (no ISBN) See
4) The editor of 'Transfigural Mathematics' asked permission to publish a chapter from my web book 'The Human Whole' for which I gave permission. See scan of the magazine details etc/ at
5) A selection of my main national newspaper articles published can be seen in scan format at, and
6) Article in the International Indian journal 'Law Animated World', 15 December, 2005, Hyderabad see
7) Article in Norway's nationally-distributed English Cultural Magazine 'Ragtime', Vol 10. No 7. Oslo. see
8) My book 'The Source of Dream' was published in Portuguese as 'Fonte de Sonho', Madras, 2000 (ISBN 85-7374-438 3): see ProEdits 19 Febuary 2007

Regarding Links To Anti-Sai Websites

Admin has spoken again regarding this matter. Please see the final warning given to Andries about including links to websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 talk-email 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note two things here. First, Priddy's book "End of the dream" : the Sathya Sai Baba enigma : collected articles of Robert Priddy. is only owned by one academic library worldwide, according to WorldCat. That argues against it being used as an authoritative source for anything. Second, as a "collection of articles", the book is only as good as the articles that are its foundation. If those articles can be located, and if they are published in reliable sources (that is, peer-reviewed academic journals, or other sources that are unbiased and have strong editorial and fact checking policies) then such articles can in fact be used as sources, not only for this article, but for other articles about Sai Baba. The proper citation would then not be to the book, but to the source where the articles were originally published. This information must be provided so that other editors can evaluate its independence and reliability. Thatcher131 19:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131 Your comment contradicts the generally accepted Wikipedia practices that is okay to use the subject as a source about itself with some caution, as can be seen on Wikipedia:reliable sources. I deny that I have violated any Wikipedia policy on this article with my edits, neither by linking to Priddy's own homepage (I repeat his own homepage), as per WP:EL or by citing a bit from his own homepage about Priddy himself. Here is a relevant excerpt from Wikipedia:reliable sources for a reminder
"Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:
  • relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • not contentious;
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject"
Andries 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Robert Priddy has not been cited in any reliable sources. None. SSS108 talk-email 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The critical book that Priddy wrote about Sathya Sai Baba was self-published through Basava Premanand. SSS108 talk-email 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Untrue, as if Premanand publishes anything if you pay him. May be not a reputable publisher but that is a different matter. Andries 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Premanand specifically self-publishes information that argues in favor of his rationalist views against Sathya Sai Baba. He is a self-publisher and is not a reputable publisher either. SSS108 talk-email 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you are wrong. You seem to confuse the concepts self-publishing and reputable publisher which are two different things. The Wikipedia entry self-publishing states that "Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers." Andries 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And I'd like to point out the following conditions about self-published material:
  • not contentious;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject
His material is very contentious and is about a third party (Sathya Sai Baba). Citing this policy is moot. SSS108 talk-email 22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, not what I cited. Andries 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then explain this: Ref. You signed it several posts up. SSS108 talk-email 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that the excerpt from Priddy's homepage that I cited in his article was "not contentious" nor "about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject" and as such was okay to cite. Andries 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


What's going on here? I'm rather confused.

The first question is: Is Robert Priddy relevant enough for a Wikipedia article? This seems to be answered positively in the past, as the existence of this articles proofs. So let continue to the second question:

Why does the information that Priddy is an eager anti-SBB-activist gets deleted, and the weblink to the his website, where this can be seen?

Please don't come with slander and libel. We have more than 100 links to [3], e.g. from Jack Chick, and on that site any amount of slanderl, libel (and WP:BOLLOCKS) can be found.

Pjacobi 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The link and information get deleted because of, what I see as a flawed interpretation, of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Pjacobi, perhaps you can do the research and make the case for Priddy's notability? It appears that Priddy's wiki-page was deemed notable enough for a stub because he published several books and because of the information listed on his selected bibliography. Unlike other notable individuals (who are often compared and contrasted with Robert Priddy), Priddy has never been mentioned in any reliable or reputable media sources and he is not a public figure. Go ahead and research it for yourself and tell us your findings. SSS108 talk-email 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this article has already survived an AFD. Andries 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said on what basis. The AFD was also cut short because I was deemed to be too close to the dispute. SSS108 talk-email 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I won't be offended or surprised, if you try anotehr AFD on this. But as far as a quick assessment goes, being a vocal critic of SSB is part of Priddy's relevance. Do you doubt, that is his website? This would look like a rather far fetched argument. And the site is rather civil, compared with at least. Or have a look at Tilman Hausherr and Note: I don't say that ex-member or anti-cult activists are the best (or even a valid) source for articles about NRMs. But the typical attack website is part of their notability. Heck, even the link to is given on enwiki, and this is by any sane standard a really bad website. --Pjacobi 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, Admin has ruled that the link to that website cannot be include on the talk-pages. Please respect the decision in this matter even if you do not agree with it. There is no doubt that Priddy created the website in question. He has created 3 of them specifically attacking Sathya Sai Baba. They are not relevant to his person. They are relevant to his smear campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba. Making websites does not make one notable. There is an ArbCom decision pertaining to this matter. SSS108 talk-email 22:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi, do not listen to SSS108's disinformation, but do as you pleas here as long as you follower talk page rules and etiqueste. Andries 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Andries, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, why don't you specifically state what part of my reply was "disinformation"? SSS108 talk-email 22:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned before, Priddy's home page is already listed on his Wiki-Page. SSS108 talk-email 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The website critical of SSB fits the Wikipedia definition of homepage and as such shoulc be listed here too. SSS108 is merely repeating his disinformation. Andries 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I can't find what you are talking about. Please provide a link with text. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

From personal homepage
"Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. The content can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in."
Andries 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what you arguing your case on? If so, I am not going to comment any further. This is an issue for Admin and they have already spoken twice. SSS108 talk-email 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I just pinpointed where all the confusion is coming from. The description for Priddy's homepage gave the incorrect impression that the link in question was not Priddy's homepage, but simply a webpage that contained information about him. I provided the correct link (from the same website) which has the index to all of his articles and was entitled, by Priddy himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Home Page". See For Yourself or View Cache. SSS108 talk-email 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Weblink restored

I've restored the weblink to on the article page. Hosting this attack site is mostly, what makes Priddy notable. No article on Robert Priddy without linking seems self evident. Just as it would be pointless to have an article on Tilman Hausherr without linking

I've changed the wording from criticizing to attacking. If a native speaker can provide a better description pleas go forward. But I'm of the opinion, that the anti-cult activists are not merely critical about their opponents, but are their enemies.

Regarding vs (I obviously mean a normal "hot" HTTP link, but have de-actived it here, to make SSS108 sleep better) -- as "nofollow" is implemented on Wikipedia, neither does have an effect on the Google page rank. And using working links has the bonus to be searchable by

Pjacobi 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of the decision here? I agree the situation is similar to Xenu but Xenu is not the subject of an arbitration case banning links to external attack web sites. Thatcher131 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I modified that section (replacing 'attacks' with 'critical') and just reworded that whole sentence in neutral language without reading this discussion first. Sorry about that, feel free to revert if Pjacobi's edit is considered better. Ekantik talk 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm very much aware of that case. But (a) it binds only Andries and SSS108 and (b) it applies to articles about Sathay Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. Robert Priddy is not Sathay Sai Baba (at least no reliable source has been brought forward supporting this claim) nor is he an organizations affiliated with SSB. --Pjacobi 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am shocked by your behavior, Pjacobi. You know there was an ArbCom decision regarding this matter. SSS108 talk-email 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr has one link to his primary homepage. Jack Chick has one link to his primary homepage. Similarly, on Priddy's page, one link is provided to his primary homepage. SSS108 talk-email 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You are misreading the ArbCom ruling. It restricts Andries and you, not other editors in good standing. In several discussions regarding the problems with article about NRMs, you will find the sentiment, that it's a totally insanse and unhelpful situation, that most of their articles are edited exclusively by members and ex-members (and other enemies). Both of which should better abstain from editing due to WP:COI.
Personally, I don't think that ex-members and anti-cult-activists are a good source for articles about the NRMs (but neither members who can't maintain a critical distance, at least while editing). But unfortunately, scholars of sociology, psychology and religious studies don't volunteer to do the job or are driven away. Or are under constant attack lioke User:Fossa/en:User:Fossa. (FWIW: Note the voting behaviour on my de: RfA: de:User:THausherr was the first to vote against me, while I've got support from de:User:Fossa)
So, summarizing, is not good, or even valid source for Sathai Sai Baba (but may, using a fine comb, give directions where to search for sources), but that's totally unrelated to the fact, that this website is highly relevant to the article Robert Priddy. Heck, it gave Priddy so much exposure, that two attack sites attacking his attack site were set up:
Pjacobi 20:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, you know nothing about this matter. I will soon be explaining all of this on Thatcher's talk page. Stop violating the ArbCom ruling and the opinions of 2 editors. Revert. SSS108 talk-email 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Alan Kazlev set up his own Wiki-page for Priddy as well. SSS108 talk-email 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The interpretation of the ruling by SSS108 yields hilariously a complete reversal of the generally accepted practices: it seems to be okay here to post an attack website on the living person in question but not okay to post the website maintained by the subject in question. Crazy! Andries 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

These Anti-Sai websites contain defamatory and potentially libelous information. Even you admitted that your Anti-Sai Website was threatened with legal action. There is now an ArbCom ruling in this matter. You keep failing to take that into consideration. Also, Priddy's Anti-Sai Website contains defamatory and libelous information against me. SSS108 talk-email 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SSS108. Yes, may hold defamatory and potentially libelous information. So we don't use it as source for Sathay Sai Baba. But to document Robert Priddy's beliefs and activities. We also dont and as sources for the article Judaism -- but we nevertheless link them on their relevant articles (we don't or won't link the stormfront site on de: as it is against German law, but that's another problem. --Pjacobi 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, I disagree. Two Admin have interpreted the policy as I have. The ArbCom ruling does not pertain to only Andries and me. Are you saying I can include my link criticizing Priddy because his Anti-Sai Webpages contain defamatory and libelous information about me? SSS108 talk-email 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't even parse this question. You are very confused. --Pjacobi 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If, as Pjacobi says, Priddy notable because he is a notable SSB critic, it would be much better to state that through a reliable third party source. Including Priddy's attack site looks like a back door way to get around the restrictions on self-published personal experience. In reply to Andries' comments about why this restriction is placed on Priddy's web site but not Xenu or Michael Moore, the editors of those articles didn't find themselves under arbitration scrutiny for behaving badly. There is no single uniform rule applied to all articles, and the arbitration committee has placed certain restrictions on SSB in response to past excesses. However, since both Pjacobi and I are admins and we disagree, it would be best to leave the link alone and wait for clarification from the arbitrators. Thatcher131 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher131, that is untrue. The previous arbcom case did not say that I behaved badly. I got a complete amnesty. And in addition, if that is your way of reasoning then uninvolved editors like are fully allowed to add a link to Priddy's website in his own article. Andries 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, if Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding a website with SSS108's defamatory original resarch to this article may be a violation of WP:BLP. Andries 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
On enwikie every person and organisation quite liberally gets the link to their homepage, where they promote their views, may they even be radical. On other Wikipedia, restrictions by law (i.e. anti-Nazism laws in Germany) or decency (regarding porn sites) are in use.
The ArbCom ruling doesn't apply here for three reasons, only one of them may be easily doubted. I very much hope, ArbCom will tell us more about the spirit of the ruling, so that no fights about the letters are necessary. In the meantime, I (again) state the three points:
  1. ArbCom rulings only restrict involved parties. They neither set new policy nor (strictly speaking) precedents. Only in few cases (Bogdanov-Affair) there was a special clause applying to all "new editors".
  2. The ArbCom ruling in question applies to an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. This doesn't fit this article Robert Priddy.
  3. The ArbCom ruling forbids the inclusion of poorly sourced information. I don't want to use as a source for any information, except that (a) it is Priddy's website and (b) it is a website attacking Sathya Sai Baba. For both these simple facts, the website is not a poor source. I'd very much agree that it is a poor source for everything else.
Pjacobi 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pcajobi, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe that "experienced" editors are entitled to add original research, critical and poorly sourced material and links on talk pages and in articles? One would think that experienced editors would know better. The ArbCom ruling is binding to the Sathya Sai Baba articles. Robert Priddy is listed under SSB's category and the content is bound to the ArbCom ruling. Robert Priddy created his own page and the very first thing he did was publish his attack page link against Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy is non-notable. Priddy is not referenced in any reliable or reputable references. Yet still you advocate for him (even citing Indymedia) to use his wiki-page as a forum to push his defamatory views that have not recieved any support or mention in any sources whatsoever. If this is what Wikipedia is truly about, I don't want anything to do with it. SSS108 talk-email 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 you unfortunately display a complete lack of logical thinking. I don't add anything from but only want to state its existence and URL, which is hardly subject to any doubts.
Regarding Category:Sathya Sai Baba: The ArbCom ruling is silent about categories. See the above bullet point 2 for its scope.
You have one valid may: Robert Priddy may be not notable at all. You can test this hypothesis by another AfD.
Pjacobi 11:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It has already been established that I am too close to the dispute to make the AFD. Pjacobi, why don't you make the AFD? In all this time (since May) no one can provide even one reliable or reputable media source that mentions Priddy. Not even one. Therefore, one cannot compare Priddy to any other people who have been mentioned in reliable and reputable media (which you have been attempting to do). SSS108 talk-email 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Robert Priddy is also using Indymedia for promoting his anti-SBB stance, see e.g. [[4]]. Should also be mentioned in some form. --Pjacobi 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, you are compromising whatever integrity you had as a Wikipedia editor. I once voiced my concerns regarding your Pro-Andries stance and you have validated all my doubts today. Instead of taking up the civil path and discussing this with ArbCom, you are waging your own promotion campaigns for Robert Priddy, even citing indymedia. I can't help but wonder why you are acting the way you are. I will not be bullied by you and unlike you, I am abiding by the ArbCom ruling and the opinions of 2 Admin. If you have a problem, take it up the correct route instead of the gutter route. SSS108 talk-email 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I just can't stand the hypocrisy of trying to avoid the link to Priddy's attack site in Priddy's article. Not on an online encyclopedia which deems links to stormfront and necessary. --Pjacobi 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. Now Indymedia (an online posting forum where anyone can post anything they wish at any time they wish) is considered reliable information to include on one's wiki-page. I think you are digging a deeper hole for yourself Pjacobi. SSS108 talk-email 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two important difference between Tilman Hausherr and Robert Priddy's articles, independent of the arbitration ruling. First, Hausherr's article cites three independent sources (academic papers) establishing his importance as a scientology critic. There seem to be no independent sources for Priddy's importance. I just did a LexisNexis search and came up completely empty. Second, Hausherr's article discusses a scientology web site that is critical of him, and there seems to be no discussion of such balance here. I would prefer not to include anti-Priddy web sites, since the organization doesn't seem to have a statement on him, all the critics are unofficial blogs. Thatcher131 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This should be solved with an AFD not by omitting his website. Andries 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, my critiques of Priddy are located on my domain, as well as on a blog. They are not exclusively on a blog. My website is still "unofficial" anyway. SSS108 talk-email 07:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

These are not "critiques", these are opnions. And defamatory opinions at that. Ekantik talk 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, funny that you, of all people, should criticize others for "defamatory opinions". SSS108 talk-email 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Your pages consist of your defamatory opinions of Robert Priddy, not critiques of his work or articles. Ekantik talk 05:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. You apparently (in all this time) have not bothered to read all my critiques about Priddy (as can be seen in my responses to his disempowerment series). SSS108 talk-email 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me be more precise: You have no qualifications to make a critique of Priddy's personal insights and experiences because you cannot confirm the truth of them one way or another. Your own qualifications in the matter are ambiguous. Your "critiques" of them are pure POV and ad-hominem attack, as per your regular questioning of Priddy's senility, etc. Ekantik talk 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic illogic, Ekantik. Using your own standards, you have no qualifications to make a critique of SSB because you cannot confirm the truth of them one way or another. Your own qualifications in the matter are ambiguous. Your "critiques" are pure POV and ad hominem attacks, as per your regular questioning of SSB's senility (among numerous other defamatory slurs), etc. You have accused SSB of being "senile", a "feckless senile old man", "the legal system does not care for his senile pronouncements", etc. Wonderful to see how your words come back to haunt you. SSS108 talk-email 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, discuss the issues of this article in a reasonable way instead of masking your personal attacks as editorial comments. Your defamatory "critiques" are not fit to be listed as external links. Period. Accept it and move on. Ekantik talk 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ekantik/Gaurasundara, I am simply pointing your equivocation in this matter. Your comments about me are superficial considering that you engage in the very same behavior you accuse me of, but far worse. All throughout Wikipedia (on articles not bound by an ArbCom ruling) there are numerous examples of external links where critics take a very harsh stance against the person in question. If Priddy is deemed notable enough based on his attacks against Sathya Sai Baba, my website link (not a blog) can also be added as an external link criticizing Priddy's stance on Sathya Sai Baba. It is that simple. SSS108 talk-email 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
What's important here, is the unreliable sources in articles about themselves clause. If X writes on his website, that Jews are slaughtering Palestinean children to transplant their organs, it is of course in no way a valid source of said fact. But it is a valid source, for stating that X is an antisemite. --Pjacobi 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to Sanatana Sarathi, official magazine of the Sathya Sai Organization

May be we can add that he wrote for the Sanatana Sarathi. Hereunder is an overview of his writings for that magazine

  • Spiritual Insight Transcends Science March 1988, p. 63ff
  • Common sense and Truth Sept. 1988, p. 246ff
  • The Eternal Verity Oct. 1988, p. 269ff
  • From Fragmentation to Synthesis Jan. 1989, p. 17ff
  • Back to the Source Feb. 1989, p. 45ff
  • What is Inner Reality? June 1989, p. 147ff
  • Human Unity Holistic Understanding Oct. 1989, p. 269ff
  • God’s Will and Ours Jan. 1990, p. 17ff
  • Language of Head and Heart May 1990, p. 129ff
  • Towards Acceptance of Suffering Sept. 1990, p. 248ff
  • The Challenge of Sai Baba’s Teachings Feb. 1991, p. 43ff
  • Inquiry into the Self Apr, 1991, p. 101ff
  • Faith & Certainty July 1991, p. 189ff
  • Freedom & Fate June 1993, p. 165ff
  • Diversity, Unity, Divinity May 1994, 129ff
  • The Way Beyond Apr. 1994, p. 103ff
  • The Universal World Teacher July 1994, p. 186ff
  • Science & Spiritual Knowledge Sept. 1994, p. 234ff
  • Reflections on Seeing Good March 1995, p. 75ff
  • The Unfolding Divine Saga Nov. 1995, p. 24ff
  • Self-esteem, Basis of Spirituality May, 1996, p. 134ff
  • Playing the Game of Life July 1997, p. 184ff:
  • On Religious & Other Differences July 1998, p. 182ff

Andries 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Sanathana Sarathi is a self-published monthly "magazine" specific only to SSB. SSS108 talk-email 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The monthly journal 'Sanathana Sarathi' is registered in India officially as a public newspaper with the Registrar of Newspapers R. NO. 10774/58. It is available in many libraries in India and in various countries around the world where the Sathya Sai Organisation has as a policy to get this journal and all recognised Sathya Sai publications into libraries the world over. It had at least 50,000 subscribers throughout the world even in 1990. That many Robert Priddy articles were actually published in 'Sanathana Sarathi' can be seen by the scans of the index pages of the journal at for the purpose of rebutting speculative false and statements about this by SSS108. ProEdits


This "and occasionally contributes to Indymedia releases" has no meaning. Anyone with a web browser can "contribute" to Indymedia "releases"[5]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's meaningless. Anyone can, but not everyone does, so it means something. Whether it's encyclopedic is a different question. 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

book review

I notice that "Source of the Dream" got a very favorable review on a pro-SSB site [6]. If the author's views underwent a complete turnaround later (End of the Dream) that should certainly be mentioned, even if the second book is more obscure. 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These type of reviews on POV sites are frowned upon on Wikipedia. Devotee's praise of a devotee's (at the time) book is POV. It doesn't come from a reliable source either. SSS108 talk-email 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In what sense? Ekantik talk 04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


The (rather pointless) infobox contained, under "occupation", "past official...". Being an official in the past isn't an occupation, and the claim is made in the text of the article, so I deleted it from the infobox.

The claim has had a request for a citation for a while. It should surely be easy to provide one (does anyone, incidentally, deny it, or is this just a bit of pointless factionalism?) — I think that, if some satisfactory source isn't provided in the next week, I'll remove the claim from the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, I personally doubt the claim and have not seen any references to support the claim. Since you appear to be interested in the article, why don't you research the claim for yourself and supply the necessary material from reliable and reputable references as outlined in WP:RS? You will not find any (which is what this whole debate is about). SSS108 talk-email 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is very easy to provide references, but I got blocked and banned from the article when I provided them. Andries 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, not from reliable or reputable references. SSS108 talk-email 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, the references that I used were within the guideline of reputable sources. Andries 18:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
well, could you give them here. on the Talk page? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MelEtitis, here is the diff in question: [7]. No one has been able to establish that Priddy is "notable" for his attacks against SSB. I'm still waiting for even one reliable or reputable source. Hence, his attack site cannot be cited for this very simple reason. SSS108 talk-email 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, read the excerpts from the guideline reputable sources that I posted hereabove. Andries 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot cite Priddy's website as a reputable source when no one can establish that he is notable for his attacks on SSB. SSS108 talk-email 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Can you cite policy and guidelines to support your statement? Andries 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no reliable or reputable sources about Priddy, attempting to argue his notability based on a contentious, controversial and critical website against Sathya Sai Baba violates self-published sources, which you cited earlier. Even Pjacobi attempted to argue that he does not want to include material from Priddy's Anti-Sai Website, but simply wants to include the link. However, already we see that when it comes to supporting claims made by Priddy, it would have to be sourced to his Anti-Sai Website because it cannot be sourced anywhere else. SSS108 talk-email 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply to my question where the policies and guidelines back up your opinion that Robert Priddy's homepage cannot be used as a reputable source in Wikipedia for this article because, as you assert "no one can establish that he is notable for his attacks on SSB." In contrast, I have argued hereabove when and where this guideline states that his homepage can be as a reputable source used and, as usual, I am still waiting for a detailed rebuttal from you. Andries 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in violation of the ArbCom ruling, an opinion already voiced by 2 Admin. SSS108 talk-email 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, as said above you are mistaken. The interpretation of the ArbCom decision will (hopefully) be fully done in the new ArbCom decision.
But it seems rather clear to me, that using as source for (a) Sathya Sai Baba and (b) Robert Priddy are totally different cases. (a) is clearly outruled by policy and ArbCom affirmed this. (b) is usually OK per policy and everybody waits for ArbCom to give interpretation of policy in this specific case.
What you've got totally wrong, is the rôle of administrators: They don't have an overruling voice regarding article content. They only enforce policy and ArbCom decisions.
Pjacobi 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

priddy notability

I figured that since SSS108 hadn't contested the claim of Priddy having been a former SSB official in Norway, it must have been true. I've found a bunch of other references to it, enough to convince me that it's true, though not solidly WP:RS. Generally we should not wikilawyer over things like this unless there's actual controversy.

I spent a while looking at Priddy's site and it looks to me like his main interests are psychology and philosophy. SSB is not even mentioned on his home page (i.e. the site's top-level page). He has a bunch of online writings about philosophy and psychology that look fairly interesting. Overall he seems like an idealistic but somewhat gullible guy. He says he is not religious but he apparently believes in paranormal stuff like reincarnation. He believed in SSB for a while and wrote "Source of the dream", but then broke away from it. "Source of the dream" was very favorably reviewed and apparently republished by an SSB-related organization. These days there's an apparent effort in SSB circles to vilify and "disappear" him. Certainly it seems notable in the SSB context that they liked this guy's book so much and republished it, but then he turned around completely. Otherwise I agree with SSS108 that he's at best marginal on normal WP:BIO grounds.

Andries, are you in contact with Priddy? Maybe you can ask him what specific articles are in "End of the dream" or whether it will likely be published in the west.

I liked the story about SSB being able to turn ash into valuable jewels with a wave of his hand. That sounds even better than Superman, who was able to turn coal into diamonds, but only through the effort of squeezing the coal very very hard. Lee Siegel's book "Net of Magic: Wonders and Deception in India" (U. of Chicago press 1991) apparently describes some of SSB's techniques, deduced from video recordings of SSB. Siegel (skilled in magic tricks himself) apparently ran out of cash during his travel in Nevada, so if I understand the description, he pretended to be SSB to "a bunch of foolish Americans who, to his utter astonishment, never ask for their money back when he uses slight of hand to turn it into ash (p. 316)". (From review by Amy Grodzins Gold [8]). 05:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I haver his book at home, but I dunno whether it will be published out of India. Andries 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SSB was mentioned on Priddy's homepage in the past but he removed it. Also, I clearly stated that I doubt Priddy's alleged former status as a SSB official in Norway. I am sorry you are not reading my replies. I already made that comment to MelEtitis. Also, all of your quotes are irrelevant to Priddy's notability. SSS108 talk-email 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

By "notable in the SSB context" I mean the SSB movement has devoted significant amounts of its own attention to him (as shown on SSB-related web sites), enough that it may be worth mentioning somewhere in WP's SSB-related articles. I don't mean it shows notability in the sense of WP:BIO, the customary guideline for deciding whether to write a separate WP biographical article about the person. 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, it is not true that I ever had any SSB material on my homepage [9], though I added some links there to my SSB pages very recently, assuming that - since this matter is one of my current major interests - it is admissable and does not subvert the Arbitration ruling as that stands. Evidence of me - Robert Priddy - having been the national leader in Norway is copious and one example is seen in the Sai Organisations official brochure from Europe 1 Region III - Activities of the Sathya Sai Organisation in 16 Countries (Norway page is p. 44) ISBN 90-72308-10-7 A scan of relevant pages is found at ProEdits 19 Febuary 2007

You are very much mistaken First of all, Sai Towers is not related to the Official Sathya Sai Organization in any way. Secondly, Sai Towers took over publishing Priddy's book, hence the favorable book review. Please show us the "significant amounts of attention" devoted to Priddy? I can't find it. You have only cited one book review from a non-official Sai Site that published the book review because they sold Priddy's book. This hardly counts as "significant amounts of attention". Please research this properly before making your unsupported comments here. SSS108 talk-email 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If they republished a 5-year-old book of Priddy that's attention all by itself (good catch though that they reviewed a book from their own imprint). And there's a huge amount of anti-Priddy invective on all kinds of SSB-oriented sites including your own IIRC. When discussing the organization, one has to be careful about how the different groups are related. When discussing the movement as a whole, I'm not too concerned about which groups are "official" and which are not. Sai Towers appears to be a hotel chain run by SSB devotees with some other affiliated projects, reminiscent to me of some other business-religion complexes like the Unification Church. The SSB aspect should certainly be documented if we were to write about Sai Towers (noting the distinction from the official organization to the extent that can be documented). 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

None of this information makes Priddy notable. Can you kindly tell me why exactly you are involved in this issue and what research you have conducted into this matter? The reason I ask is because you making many inaccurate generalizations. Priddy's book was first published in 1997 and Sai Towers took over the publishing rights in 1999. They are no longer publishing the book. Sai Towers is also a publisher of Sai-related information. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that a publisher's book-review to a book they sell (to promote sales) is a reliable source? Priddy was a devotee until 2000/2001. So it is of no surprise that they published the book while he was still a devotee. Your citations do not fit WP:RS or WP:BLP. Instead of making all sort of arguments, just supply us with the reliable or reputable sources that mention Priddy. That would be of the greatest help. SSS108 talk-email 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I saw, Source of the Dream was first published in 1994. I started following this issue because of the arb case. I'd never heard of SSB before that, and have been surfing around (I wouldn't go as far as to call it "research") trying to figure out what's going on. You are right (indicated earlier) that I didn't notice at first that the review of that book came from the re-publisher (sheesh!) since I'd discovered the review and the republication history separately. It remains apparent that Sai Towers found the book interesting enough to be worth (re-)publishing. 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Priddy claimed it was first published in 1994 by Bangalore Sun-Sky Publications. The amazon search I looked at said 1997 for a different publisher. Sai Towers republished the book when Priddy was a devotee. That's why they found it interesting :-) At any rate, thank you for the clarification. Now you can see why this whole issue is so complex. Sincerely, SSS108 talk-email 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

V. K. Narasimhan

Anyone know more about this guy? He seems to have been a pretty well-known writer even separate from his BBS involvement. 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Results, as it applies to Priddy. SSS108 talk-email 17:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exhaustive list of Priddy's magazine articles

This isn't something that is included in any other article, to the best of my knowledge, as it's unnecessary to provide such a level of detail. What's the reason for trying to include it here? Even as a footnote it makes a cumbersome chunk of text, not terrible easy to rad, and apparently intended only to impress the reader with Priddy's achievement (which it doesn't, but in any case that's not what we're supposed to be trying to do). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding the list without discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of not including the citation? It is unobtrusive, and provides verification for the asserted fact. I will restore. Smee 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I've explained this above; simply saying "why not?" is hardly a reasonable response. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not interfere with the body text. What is wrong with the citation? Smee 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh good grief, why can you not respond to the point that I made, and answer the question that I asked? This sort of exhaustive list is unnecessary, and is not included in other articles. It makes a very ungainly footnote. What is the point of it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It backs up the fact - that is the point of a citation. "Oh good grief" - why will you not answer my question, and give me a reason not to have it? And please do not use phrases like "oh good grief" with me, it is not nice. Let us discuss content and not each other. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Thank you. Smee 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

The fact doesn't need to be backed up by a list of every article the man wrote. I can only repeat that no other article (here or in any other work of reference) does that. That is a reason not to. And I haven't discussed you; I first tried to get you to discuss your edit, and when you finally posted here but without answering my question, I tried to get you to answer it. "Oh good grief" is pretty mild, I'd have thought — but you're welcome to report me for incivility, to find out what other editors think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did this information come from that Priddy contributed twenty three articles? It came from his non-notable Anti-Sai website. There are no reliable secondary sources that have published this information so I am removing it. If anyone wants to readd it, I suggest you provide the reputable or reliable references that make mention to this information. I personally doubt that Priddy wrote those articles because I have never seen them and they are self publications in a non-reputable magazine, as per WP:RS. SSS108 talk-email 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
They may not be reputable citations for anything else, other than the fact that he actually wrote the actual articles. Smee 09:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Mel Etitis, what kind of citation do you propose? There is good reasons to treat this article differently than others because no other article is subject to a flawed interpretation of the arbcom decision that says that the article cannot even link to one of the homepages of the subject in question. Generally accepted Wikipedia practices are not valid here. Andries 09:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the list of article titles is itself uncited, how does it provide a citation? The footnote is merely a more detailed version of the main claim. If I claim that Albert Einstein wrote regularly for Playboy, I can't get away with it simply by listing the titles of the articles he's supposed to have written. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, what you write is untrue, the list is verifiable by checking the contents of Sanathana Sarathi or Playboy. I have read some of Priddy's articles in Sanathana Sarathi. Andries 12:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
First, nothing that I wrote is untrue; you might think that my argument is invalid, or that my analogy doesn't hold, in which case say so. Secondly, if the references to the articles can be confirmed by reading this obscure publication to which most people (including me) have no access, then so can the original claim. If the original claim needs additional proof, then so does the list of articles.
Thirdly, I've also just removed another citation, which (though it seemed to be to a reliable source, the BBC) was to a public message board on which anyone could have their say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So what if you do not have access to the Sanatana Sarathi magazine? The contents is verifiable if you do some effort to get access. The main claim that Priddy published in the Sanathana Sarathi is made verifiable by giving the names and dates of the published articles. I see nothing wrong or strange in that. Andries 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why you think that the list needs citation when the list with detailed titles, author name, and dates of publication is verifiable by checking the contents of the Sanatana Sarathi magazine. It is like saying that you need citation for a book published by an author when all the bibliographical data is available. Andries 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Claim A: RP wrote articles in a magazine. Claim B: RP wrote this list of articles in the magazine.

If A. needs a citation, then B. needs a citation. If B. doesn't need a citation (because one can look at the magazine) then A. doesn't need a citation (because one can look at the magazine). This doesn't seem to be a difficult point, so is there something in your mind that you're not saying, but that invalidates the reasoning?

Note that, at the very most all that would be needed in any case would be a list of issue numbers and dates, and only for a representative sample. Also, it's not clear why the article needs to say how many article he wrote; is the number supposed to be significant? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The information is only verifiable if you give titles and publication dates which is exactly what Smeelgova has done (which I support), though I admit that giving the titles and dates of all the 23 articles may be too much. I agree with you that the number of articles is not so important and I had removed it even before you wrote this comment. Andries 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've already said, to which you don't respond. On the issue of the number, I've changed "dozens" (twenty-three is less than two dozen) to "many". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had replied to everything relevant that you wrote, but may be I simply do not understand what you mean, though the dispute seems very simple to me. What are you waiting for a reply to. Andries 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting Mel Ettis from above: Note that, at the very most all that would be needed in any case would be a list of issue numbers and dates - This sounds like a fair compromise offer. Smee 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
I have implemented this suggestion. Smee 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Good. I see from this edit by Mel Ettis - that we have reached a consensus on compromising on this issue. I am truly glad that we are working together in a more cordial manner at present. Smee 14:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

The material added is controversial, original research and does not meet WP:RS. The Sanathana Sarthi material was taken from Priddy's Anti-Sai website and has not been published by reliable or reputable sources. SSS108 talk-email 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, we do not quote the Sanatana Sarathi. We only write that he has written in the Sanatana Sarathi. Andries 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what Priddy alleges. I have not seen them and doubt he wrote that many. The material is taken from his Anti-Sai website. This once again goes to show that more and more information will be taken from Priddy's Anti-Sai website despite the claim that all that should be cited from it is the link. SSS108 talk-email 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not citing the site, we are citing the articles - and only so far as to show he wrote them. Please do not remove cited material established through consensus between Smee, Andries, and Mel Etitis. Thank you. Smee 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

That many Robert Priddy articles were actually published in 'Sanathana Sarathi' can be seen by the scans of the index pages of the journal at ProEdits 19 Febuary 2007

I'm a little surprised at SSS108's behaviour here given the current state of affairs with regard to the current RfAr. Note also that an editor's personal doubt isn't a good reason to remove information; do you have grounds for the claim that he didn't write the articles? A source? A citation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am more surprised by Mel Etitis' behavior not only given the current RFA, but also the fact that the article is relying on non-reliable/reputable sources and Mel Etitis is actually defending this type of material. SSS108 talk-email 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have quite a few back issues of the magazine in question and I can confirm that several of Robert Priddy's articles were published in it. Ekantik talk 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The magazine exists [10]; 3 research libraries in the US have it; not much, but enough that it's not just a mimeographed newsletter or something. To state that Priddy has written articles, it is necessary only to cite the magazine itself (proper bibliographic format; title, volume, date and page number. Article titles would be good as well). The verifiability principle allows this, since it is possible to verify if someone really wanted to (via interlibrary loan request from one of the 3 US research libraries, for example). To say "he has written several articles for Sanatana Sarathi, the official magazine of the SSB movement", you can cite the articles themselves without relying on or linking to Priddy's site. I would not list them all, as we are not Priddy's resume, but a few for which you can verify titles, for example. You should probably not quote the articles. Thatcher131 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Please do not summarily remove citations without discussion on talk page. Thank you. Smee 12:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Mel Etitis did explain the reasons why he removed several citations, though I disagree with him in the case of Sanathana Sarathi. Andries 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wondering what issues Mel Ettis has with citations from secondary sources: In Search of Sai Divine, and Tread Softly: Sathya Sai Baba's Teachings on Nature and the Environment ? Smee 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Links To Priddy's Website

Please stop adding the link to Priddy's Anti-Sai Site. This has already been discussed numerout times before and is currently bound by the ArbCom ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Those who are attempting to build good faith, should refrain from including this link, as it is being discussed in the current RFA. SSS108 talk-email 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for communicating nicely on the talk page! I have removed the link to Priddy's web site. Smee 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Leo Rebello's Million Dollar Legal Suit Against Robert Priddy

Smee, if Indymedia is considered a reputable source, and a link is provided for it regarding SSB, I fail to see why Leo Rebello's million dollar legal suit against Robert Priddy for defamation should not be cited as well? "Rejoinder to Robert Priddy's malicious comments", Available online. SSS108 talk-email 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for reaching out and attempting to communicate in a kind manner on the talk page! With respect to the issue you raise above, in one instance, there is an article written by an individual on the site, and in another, there is an email posted on a message board to the site. One is reliable, the other is not. Smee 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

What do you mean? You cited the Indymedia link where Priddy attacks SSB. Leo Rebello published his criticism himself on the Indymedia site and you are saying this is unreliable? More double-standards. SSS108 talk-email 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No. One is a written-article format from a regular contributor. The other is a message-board/email/posting submission format. Smee 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Read the WP:BLP tag at the top of this discussion page. The standard for sources applies more stringently to poorly sourced critical material on living subjects. Smee 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Just for the record, this Leo Rebello person is a notoriously unreliable source and a completely slanderous and defamatory person. I know this because he wrote me some extremely foul and filthy emails some years ago (around the time he was threatening Priddy) but his claims about lawsuits are unreliable and nothing more than hot air. I would not personally credit him with anything given his discrediting himself by his abusive emails to several people. Just my thoughts. Ekantik talk 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning SSS108's proposition that there was a "million dollar legal suit against Robert Priddy" [44]. No lawsuit has ever been filed against me, nor even have I received any such claim from anyone, neither from utterly Rebello, let alone any lawyer. The claim by Rebello is sheer bluff. Rebello, who wears the title 'Dr.' wrote disgusting e-mails several years ago to many persons, as quoted from by FreeLanceResearch on Yahoo group sathyasaibaba2 - saying that I am dying of AIDS [45], though I have never had AIDS or any related illness and nor has Rebello ever even seen me! Moreover, Rebello even has a webpage - was closed down in Febuary 2006 - where he claimed at length that there is no such illness as AIDS - nor does the illnes SARS exist! His claim of a million dollar lawsuit falls into the same category of statement! ProEdits 19 Febuary 2007

I despair

Let's see. According to SSS108, Priddy's web site is verboten but Indymedia is OK. Somehow I doubt that Leo Rebello would actually file a defamation suit against Priddy and announce it by saying "Homosexuals, as you would know always attack from behind." Furthermore, this and similar reverts by SSS108 removes proper information (list of articles he wrote and books in which he is cited) along with possibly improper information. SSS108 has not clearly violated 3RR because some of the info seems prohibited per BLP and the prior arbitration case, but neither is he completely in the clear because he removed some legit info as well.

On the other hand, the reversion cites Priddy's web site, which is possibly barred under the previous arbitration case, but also an Indymedia article written by Priddy himself, which is right out, as the point is not to prove that Priddy writes for Indymedia, but to use the link as a back door to introduce self-published negative information on Sai Baba that is prohibited in the first case.

Per the discussion above, Pjacobi and I have different opinions on the meaning of the prior arbitration case ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information. Pjacobi thinks it should be applied narrowly (only to Andries and SSS108 and only on the main SSB article); I think it should be applied broadly (to any editor and to articles related to SSB). I would appreciate comment from any newcomers here who are not partisans one way or the other. In the mean time I am inclined to leave the article protected until the arbitration case is settled. You can ask for review at WP:RFPP. If you want to make changes and there is reasonable agreement for them, post {{edit protected}} on the talk page. Thatcher131 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an uninvolved editor to this page, but certainly newer to this whole debate than most of the other involved editors. At any rate, I actually agree with you on your decision to leave the article protected until the arbitration resolves. There are no dubious hyperlinks at the moment in the article - and it is unlikely that anything new will come out about Robert Priddy in the meantime whilst waiting for Arbitration to finish, such that someone would wish to add more to the article. But if I find more info in other secondary sources I shall let you know. Smee 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Thatcher, what you said is not correct. I do not think Indymedia is a reliable source whatsoever. I have stated this numerous times. However, since people keep citing Indymedia and think it is reputable source, I added the Indymedia link about Leo Rebello. As you can see, editors don't think the Indymedia link about Rebello is allowable, but think that the Indymedia link attacking SSB is allowable. I am simply exposing the double standards being used by editors here. The list of sanathana sarathi articles came from Priddy's Anti-Sai website. All of the information about Priddy, we must accept his word on, because it has not been published elsewhere. SSS108 talk-email 07:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - As stated above, in one instance, we have a posting submission article by Robert Priddy, only used as a citation to back up the fact that he actually does submit these posting, nothing else. Then, we have dubious information on that same site, but in a message board/email/posting format, and as stated in the Wikipedia:Biography of Living Persons tag at the top of this talkpage, there are two separate standards: Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. - Note that the tag warns specifically for poorly sourced, "controversial material". Smee 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Smee, since you are so familiar with Wikipedia policies, then why don't you source the material you are adding to the article from reliable and reputable sources? Surely you know what those policies are? Don't you? No one, not even you, can provide even one single reliable or reputable source to reference any of the material on Priddy's page. Most of the information on the page must be taken on the word of Robert Priddy (who created his own page) because it has not been published anywhere else. For one so conversant with Wikipedia policies, your edits are duplicitous. SSS108 talk-email 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not engage in discussion with someone who continues to violate Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Quoting that article on No Personal Attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Emphasis in original. Thanks. Smee 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

My comments were about content and I am perfectly entitled to my opinion about your edits dealing with content. SSS108 talk-email 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to whatever opinions you wish. But if you voice them in such a manner publicly on talk pages so as to violate WP:NPA, I will not respond or participate. Smee 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Back to square one. Do provide us with the reliable or reputable references that make mention to Robert Priddy as outlined by WP:RS and WP:BLP. We'd all like to see them. SSS108 talk-email 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Priddy must have seen this discussion and combined now links to his anti-SSB websites on his other homepage. Andries 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now the link issue is resolved. Now we can focus on Criticism of Robert Priddy and making another AfD to see whether or not it survives it again. SSS108 talk-email 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on this I think I am justified in feeling that SSS108's continual aggression and personal grudges against Robert Priddy is driving his motions to get this article nominated for deletion. Ekantik talk 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, please comment on content and not the editor. Please keep a cool head, take a few breaths and read WP:ATTACK. Please provide the reliable and reputable sources, as outlined in WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NOR, for the Robert Priddy article. We'd all like to see them. Neither you, Pjacobi, MelEtitis, Andries or anyone else can provide a single reliable or reputable source for Robert Priddy. ALL of the information on Priddy's wiki page must be taken on Priddy's word. That is now how an encyclopedia works. SSS108 talk-email 06:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not previously had time even to begin to penetrate the issues under discussion w.r.t. the Sathya Sai Baba page and my page etc., I have been lax in replying, just as I have been lax in searching out references in published literature to my various writings. However, here are a couple (of non-digitalised references) that should set the record straighter -A long reference to my 1968 work 'Objectivity in the Study of Human Society' (available at Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo) is published in 'Sociologiska teorier', edited by Johan Asplund Stockholm 1967 - ISBN 91-20-02381-2. (non-digitalised). A scan of the relevant passage and a translation [from the Swedish] is found at Secondly, a published reference to my sociological research project 1968-1972 is given in 'Sosiologisk Årbok 2000.1, "Kritikkens fenomenologi" p. 274 by Professor Per Otnes also on-line at ( ISSN 0808-288X. ProEdits 19 Febuary 2007