Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move of Media Articles to talk page

I moved the list of media articles to the talk page because there seems to be agreement that listing them in the article violates WP:NOT. Most of them are suitable as sources for the article. Andries 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • ((Snipped Links As Per Violation Of WP:NOT))
SSS108, you misunderstood. This policy does not apply for talk pages. I will revert your inappropriate misguided removal of talk page contents. Andries 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Andries, which Wikipedia policy states that one can move references from the Article to the Talk Page? If it violates Wikipedia policy, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by moving the media articles here? Please explain. SSS108 talk-email 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Moving the media links to the talk page can help you and others to insert contents from the articles into the main text of the article. Andries 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)#
I did not move references only media article in the external link sections. Andries 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed very strange behavior. I would be more cautious if I were you, given the recent warnings you have received, Andries.≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it easy to add contents with the list of media article at my fingertips. Andries 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You could have copied these to your sandbox, if that was your intention. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought and still think that this would be handy for others too. Andries 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a request for clarifrication from the arbcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 15:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the place to do so. The ArbCom is busy with new cases. It is now up to the community at large to enforce their decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the arbcom decisions are highly ambiguous in practical cases. Andries 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony advised me to request clarification from the arbcom User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Biographies_of_living_people. Andries 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was the cleanup reverted?

I don't see any reason why User:Francis Schonken reverted to the pre-cleanup version with the long quote in the references section. That's not what's going into the references section and only Andries has a partial problem with it. As both Andries and the SSB followers better stay out of the article, if it ever has to become an encyclopedia article, I consider this to be highly counter productive. --Pjacobi 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally, pjacobi. Personally, I think there need to be some rules created so that one person cannot dominate an article for long periods of time. If such a person is dominating an article, I feel they should be blocked for a significant period of time so that the article can be edited by others, especially of there is conflict of interest in addition to POV pushing. Freelanceresearch 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


The main reason why user:Francis Schonken reverted your edits was because your removal of citations violated WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. Andries 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you going to step aside, as requested by Pjacobi or not? I have said I am willing to step aside if you do. It is time that Anti-Sai Activists, Devotees and Proponents step aside. What is your answer? SSS108 talk-email 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that doesn't mean that a large text block goes the <references/> section. He still don't get it, that the quote would be in the main text, and if it all, only the matching sentence, not a longer excerpt goes into the <references/>. I try to outline it:
Some text section
[...]
After assessing the video the german skeptic Hackenschuss judges the performance to be a "total fake"[33].
[...]
References
[...]
[33] Hugo Hackenschuss, Fauler Zauber, GWUP-Verlag 2002, without ISBN, German quote: "völliger Schwindel"
[...]
Now, taking into account, that there seem to be no doubts about your translation, but only about text selection (which cannot be totally outruled, with quoting the entire source), I see no reason to go back to the pre-cleanup-version.
We can -- unless or untill copyright issues are outruling this -- keep the old excerpts and translations as Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Quotes in context.
Pjacobi 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that publications by individual skeptics or organizations of skeptics may not be considered good sources (because partisan) by SSS108 and others. I do not in general agree with this assesment of sources. Andries 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Andries. It all depends. If they achieved a reasonable interest in their writings, it becomes more notable. E.g. the Chinmoy critics at least got the attention of the EZW [1] and then some.
But self-published books not even available by internet booksellers and no review in major media outlets...
Please understand: For purposes of writing an encyclopedia, the absence of a scandal and a well covered scandal or exactly the same. The scandal has to be uncovered elsewhere. And as every public figure attracts false accusation, the uncovering has to stand out of this "background noise".
Pjacobi 19:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand and I basically agree. The case of the opposition by Indian rationalists (e.g. Sanal Edamaruku) against Shashi Tharoor candidacy of United Nations secretary general (succeeding Kofi Annan) because of Tharoor's somewhat uncritical writings about SSB is a borderline case. Andries 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove comments from talk pages

SSS108, If it is on topic and not libellous then removing conments is from talk pages is inappropriate considered vandalism. SeeWikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism. Andries 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Here is the removal from the talk page of non-libellous on topic contents by SSS108 [2] Please restore this inappropriate removal of contents. Thanks. Andries 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The text was removed because it is abundantly clear you are pushing your agenda on the talk page. If the media articles violated WP:NOT, why are you moving them to the talk page? First you argued that the media articles should be listed here because they violated WP:NOT on the main article → Then you argued you wanted the media articles listed here for your own convenience → Then you argued that you wanted the media articles listed here for other's convenience. Your answers are hardly consistent. If it can't be included in the article, why should you include it on the talk page? In light of what appears to be POV pushing, keeping the media articles on this page is not necessary. You can move those media links to a sandbox on your own userpage if you want them, as Jossie suggested. Ironically enough, this very issue was discussed in arbitration (Reference) in which I rightly stated that you were using the talk pages to promote your agenda. SSS108 talk-email 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT does not apply for talk pages. Fact is that you violated talk page etiquette with your removal and you should revert your removal. Andries 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How to proceed (2)?

With the vague assumptions that (a) SSB108 and Andries will voluntarily stay aside from the article (or be very carefull when editing at least) and (b) that the formal change re citations is accepted, we can perhaps tackle the big issues.

The first issues I would like to address are the

  • very long section 0
  • "Opposition, controversy, and allegations"

but cleaning this up would be major surgery involving most of the rest of the article.

For examples "Miracles and Ashrams" can be split and the different voices about the miracles presented in an unified "Miracles chapter". As is partly case now. (In the current version the miracles are discussed in section zero, "Miracles and Ashrams" and in "Opposition...".

In fact, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, I don't see any topic that should be treated in a separate "Opposition" chapter. OTOH the subchapter "Stances by devotees and proponents" is nearly completely redundant, giving just personal statements. Perhaps a good writer can summarize into two sentences, keeping all references if wanted.

Pjacobi 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, as long as Andries stays away from the article, so will I. Regarding the citations, I agree with them if Andries does. On reference 81, regarding the travel advisory, I'd suggest linking it directly to the Travel Advisory site without a citation, as is done with the other references. I also suggest removing the "Other Websites" section. SSS108 talk-email 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Someone please redirect:

Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reintroduction of media articles

Regarding the re-inclusion of the media article from Salon.com, it is already listed in the references and was removed along with other media articles. If the Salon.com article is allowed to duplicated in the article, other media articles should also be included. However, these media links were removed due to violation of WP:BLP WP:NOT as discussed earlier. Please follow the discussion and history of this page before reverting. SSS108 talk-email 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The media articles were not removed because of violation of WP:BLP, but because of violation of WP:NOT. Andries 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected my statement. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


some changes

I made some changes. I addes a link to a BBC news article (hope this falls wihin the Wikilaw possibilities), also renamed the section of comments of followers to better reflect the contents of that section, and moved the section away from 'Organisations' to practices and beliefs. Greetings, Sacca 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


allegations

Hello, there is a certain element missing from the article. We have the responses by devotees, proponents and disciples, claiming that certain allegations are not true. We have governmental organisations acting on certain concerns, making statements and propositions concerning these allegations.

What's missing is some cuccint discription of the allegations, of course these should be well sourced, taking into account the arbitration which closed earlier this month. The artibtration mentions the removel of unsourced critical information. So as long as it is sourced, it falls outside of that arbitration. There are some links to reputable websites (for example several articles at the BBC News website) mentioning these allegations, and these can be used for this purpose.Greetings, Sacca 06:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On Verifyability

On verifyability: from WP:V policy: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

These standards go together with Neutral point of view and No original research.

I state this here now because I feel it is necessary to state again that criticism can still be present in (and be added to) the article. But it should be well-sourced, neutral and not original.Greetings, Sacca 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed before. There are literally hundreds of positive/favorable media articles written about Sathya Sai Baba that have been published by reputable and reliable sources. If others begin to include negative/opposing media articles, then I will have no choice but to include the numerous positive/favorable media articles written about Sathya Sai Baba. As a matter of fact, this was already done and the long list of media articles was removed for violating WP:NOT. Saying that one can add negative/opposing media articles and not being allowed to add positive/favorable media articles is biased. The same standard needs to be implemented across the board. This content will be removed and I suggest that those who dissent try to obtain consensus with Pjcobi. SSS108 talk-email 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the reference by the way: Ref. This content was removed by Andries (who happens to be an Anti-Sai Activist) in consensus with Pjacobi and myself. I would also like to note that the edits made by Sacca (talk · contribs) have been wholly and entirely negative/opposing to Sathya Sai Baba, which (to me) is indicative of bias. SSS108 talk-email 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello SSS108, don't get too hot now, I was just posting standard wikipedia guidelines so we are aware of them. I did not say you could not post favorable mediareports, that's something you added yourself by your own thinking. Also I posted these guidelines for usage as quotes and for developing the main body of text, not specifically for the media reports in external links.
But it is true that now mainly favorable (from Sai Baba organisations) reports are there, plus a few other 'uncritical' links. There is only one link now which mentions the allegations towards Satya Sai Baba. Seeing that these allegations occupy quite a bit of space in the article, some more could be inserted on this subject (if verifyable, neutral and not original). The WP:NOT policy does not mean that no newsreport can be included. Just that we should not make a long list of links, which could be regarded as a repository of links. Note that also the long list of SaiBaba-organisation-websites could be regarded as such (a repository of links).
To close off, I invite you to:
1. declare your reason for deleting the inforation on the video documentaries. These documentaries have been made about Sathya Sai Baba, and can be mentioned here in a neutral way.
2. declare your reason for deleting the link to Basava Premanand.
Both these removals seem POV to me. Greetings, Sacca 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sacca, no one is "getting hot". If that is your perception, you are mistaken. This article is currently being redone by Pjacobi. This was decided after the arbcom ruling because the article requires much work. I suggest you discuss your edits with Pjacobi because you obviously do not understand why the links were removed in the first place. I am sure that Pjacobi will assist in incorporating the links into the article. Creating a separate section for these links was already discussed and consensus was obtained. Your attempts to re-add a separate section is being done without your knowledge of prior consensus. I already provided the referenced link. Basava Premanand's name is already linked to in the article. I just realized that someone removed the entire section from critics and skeptics. I will readd it. You will notice Premanand's name is fully linked. SSS108 talk-email 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sacca,
Are you browsing Wikipedia with some monobook.css stuff that hides the references section?
It's just because the most important for pro and con information are already mentioned in the reference, a separate "External Links" section seemed unnecessary and distraction.
Perhaps the official websites can be reduced to the most official website or just that one, which gives the easiest navigation to the other official websites. This would help avoiding the false impression we want to make as many pro-SSB links as possible.
Pjacobi 17:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello Pjacobi and SSS108 (lucky number!),
I am pleased to see that a section on a subject which I thought was missing from the article only disappeared because of a vandal, the article has a NPOV attitude to it now. I see the news-articles have appeared in the text, these were not there when I looked at the article earlier. Also the link to Basava Premanand has appeared now. So alls well, I would say. Greetings, Sacca 17:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I would still consider a reducton in number of 'official websites' to be recommendable.Greetings, Sacca 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? SSS108 talk-email 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citation makes it difficult to verify the article

I continue to disagree with with user:Pjacobi's edit of removing all the citations, though I admit that some were too long. Partially as a result of this removal of all citations references are being asked again for statements that were already referenced, such as SSB's claim to be omniscient, omnipotent etc. I had already referenced this some time ago as a result of user:Jossi's request for a reference for this. This creates all unnecessary work. The removal makes it also more difficult to check the contents and to edit the article. I will partially restore the citations or if this is too much work restore all of them. Others can then shorten citations that are too long. Andries 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that due to Pjacobi's removal of Dutch language original this article now breaks the wikipedia:verifiability policy. Before the removal did not break any policy that I am aware of. Andries 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think that omitting all citations increases the risk of errors, because checking things without citations readily available is quite tedious. Andries 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits Andries. They are controversial and have not reached consensus. You were asked to step aside which you appeared to have done. Now you are re-adding your controversial edits. SSS108 talk-email 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you write about concensus, suggesting that there was ever any concensus about this? There was no concensus about removal of citations when user:Pjacobi removed them. His removal was reverted by user:Francis Schonken (who was never before involved in this article) for very good reasons, i.e. violation of Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Large citations does not render an article more verifiable. Providing a short cite, as well as author, name of publication, ISBN and page number, is sufficient. There is also an issue of copyvio when citing large portions of published texts. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand and agree with you and Pjacobi that large citations have their drawbacks, but they do reduce the chance and the seriousness of out-of-context citations, misparaphrasing, or selective quoting which I have been repeatedly accused of. They reduce the seriousness because everything will be cleared up with a mouseclick on the footnote. Andries 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliability Of Spiegelbeeld

I am wondering how Spiegelbeeld (which Andries is trying to include in the article) is a reputable or reliable source for Biographies Of Living Persons? Spiegelbeeld is a New Age Magazine that discusses things such as yoga, spirituality, angels, mediums, channeling, crystal healing, reiki, ghosts, Atlantis, magic, UFO's, life after death, reincarnation, astrology, horoscopes and the like. How can such a magazine be used as a reputable or reliable source for Biographies Of Living Persons? Which reputable media would publish such things? It seems to me that referencing a New Age Magazine violates WP:BLP and WP:V. SSS108 talk-email 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concern and I would agree with it if it published a pro SSB article. The article reg. SSB goes against their expected bias and that makes it noteworthy, relevant and reputable. It would be similar when James Randi made a pro-SSB statement which would make it worthy of inclusion. Andries 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter Andries. A new age magazine is not a reputable or reliable source. Period. You need to cite Wikipedia policy that would allow such types of publications as reputable and reliable references. Cite Wikipedia policy instead of making excuses. SSS108 talk-email 05:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion Of Irrelevant Articles

Andries is trying to re-insert the "Sigh Baba" newspaper article taken from the Mumbai Mirror that was published on January 11th 2006 (Ref). The text Andries is trying to reinsert is:

"In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district filed a suit, in the court of Rahata, to restrain followers of Sathya Sai Baba from claiming he is a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. The case is pending as of January 2006."

This article is outdated and even though the article specifically stated "the case will be heard on January 14", there have been no verdicts, news or updates to the alleged case whatsoever. 9 months have passed and the alleged case has had no outcome. I also fail to understand why this article is relevant when it has to do with followers of Shirdi Sai Baba vs people who make claims that Shirdi Sai Baba has reincarnated in another form. No where does this article state that the court case is against "followers of Sathya Sai Baba". That is Andries inaccurate paraphrasing again. The article specifically stated that the case would ask "the court to restrain people from making such claims". There is a comment at the bottom of the article by a devotee who claimed Sathya Sai is the reincaration of Shirdi Sai.

What is the relevance? SSS108 talk-email 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is relevant that followers of Shirdi Sai Baba request people via a court not to use the name Sai Baba for Sathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram aka Sathya Sai Baba. I do not understand how you seriously doubt the relevance. Andries 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the link to a website that that you maintain and inserted in this section is formally in violation of the arbcom ruling. I do not consider it a serious violation, but I would like to know what the rules are, so I am happy that the pending request for clarification includes a question about this. Andries 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all Andries, the website you are complaining about is one that YOU agreed to in mediation with BostonMA. It is a neutral site that does not trace to either pro/anti Sai sites. Funny that you are complaining about it now. If you think that linking to this site is a violation of the ruling, then we need to remove the links from the references section as well. Should I do that? It's your call.

Secondly, the newspaper article you are trying to include does not say anything about trying to prevent people from using the name "Sai Baba". You are again inaccurately paraphrasing the article. Where does the article say that? The article is specifically about restraining other from claiming someone is a re-incarnation of Shirdi Sai. The article says nothing about a court case being filed against Sathya Sai followers or that the suit was against anyone bearing the name of Sai Baba.

Therefore, it is not relevant to the article. It only appears relevant if you misunderstand it, which you apparently are. SSS108 talk-email 05:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, when you read the article in context then it is clear that the dispute is about Sathya Sai Baba's claim to be a reincarnation of Sai Baba. Andries 05:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is "nonsense", then provide me with the actual text that says what you say it is saying. Simple. SSS108 talk-email 05:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your request. Andries 05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article in context that shows that the article is clearly related to a dispute between followers of SSB and Shirdi Sai Baba. I cannot link to the article so I had to copy it because this is forbidden by arbcom decision. Andries 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! Baba
by Manoj R Nair
Claims by followers of Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi that he is a reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi have enraged devotees of the latter. They have filed a suit in the court at Rahata, in Ahmadnagar district, asking the court to restrain people from making such claims. The case will be heard on January 14. The controversy began when an organisation, Bharat Cultural Integration Committee, wanted to club Sathya Sai's 80th birthday celebrations with the Shirdi seer's 168th birthday in November last year. The invite to the function carried a story that claimed the Sai Baba was born to a woman called Devagiriamma in 1838 and that before his death in 1918, he had promised his followers to come back after eight years, thus lending credence to the reincarnation theory.
Though it is universally agreed that Sai Baba died in 1918, his followers contend that his origins are unknown. For this reason, the Shirdi shrine has never observed any birthday of the saint. Versova resident and ardent Sai Baba devotee Manu Gidwani who has objections to the claim made by followers of Sathya Sai Baba says: "I respect the faith of the followers of Sathya Sai Baba but by claiming incarnation, they have insulted the followers of Sai Baba."
The literature on the saint brought out by Shirdi Sansthan, the organisation that runs the shrine, says the birthday and name of the holyman's parents are not known. The Sansthan's books also do not recognise claims of other godmen to be a reincarnation.
The celebration was cancelled after the objections; but the followers of Sai Baba have sought a permanent injunction restraining anyone from making claims about the birthday.
"Every saint has followers. But how can anybody claim to be an incarnation?" demands Dr Pyarelal Tiwari, a cardiologist at Bombay Hospital and a member of the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan.
However, followers of the Sathya Sai Baba insist their guru is an incarnation of the Shirdi Sai Baba. "It is a fact; there are so many evidences in this regard," said Sudhir Joshi, a follower of the Puttaparthi godman. The devotees of the Southern guru say Sai Baba had said that he will be reborn eight years after his Samadhi and meet his followers to solve their problems. Sathya Sai Baba was born eight years later after Sai Baba's death, on November 23, 1926.
©Mumbai Mirror January 11th 2006
Andries 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite any text from the "Sigh Baba" article that you claim states:

  • 1) The alleged court case is against Sathya Sai Baba's followers.
  • 2) The alleged court case is to prevent others from using the name "Sai Baba".
  • 3) The alleged case deals with Sathya Sai Baba.

The article mentions a statement by a devotee who claims that Sathya Sai is a re-incarnation of Shirdi Sai. Nevertheless, I have not read anything that the case itself being against Sathya Sai devotees, attempting to prevent others from using the name "Sai Baba" or that Sathya Sai Baba was even remotely involved in the alleged court case. You are making all these assumptions and trying to pass off your assumptions as the truth. The article does not make any of the claims you are attributing to it. Therefore, cite the text that supports your claims. I just read it again and can't find what you are claiming. SSS108 talk-email 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how to summarize it accurarely, it is clear from the context that the court case of followers of Sai Baba of Shirdi preventing people to claim to be reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba is relevant for this claimant of reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. The very short article mentions Sathya Sai Baba three times and no other guru that claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. I consider your arguments that disputes the relevance very weak. Andries 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, I consider your inaccruate paraphrasing "weak". This article is all about Shirdi Sai Baba, an alleged case attempting to restrain people from claiming others are reincarnations of Shirdi Sai and statements by followers that Sathya Sai is a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. Hence, this media article is not directly relevant to Sathya Sai Baba. It is relevant to followers, which this article is not about. SSS108 talk-email 14:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The most important among those people is Sathya Sai Baba himself who claimed to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba in the 1940s. Andries 16:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not discussing that. We are discussing your inaccurate paraphrasing and your attempt to include a media article that is irrelevant to Sathya Sai Baba himself. Last time I checked, the article is about SSB, not his followers or Shirdi Sai's followers complaints. SSS108 talk-email 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If this article is irrelevant for Sathya Sai Baba then why does the very short article mention the name of Sathya Sai Baba three times? Andries 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries, let us look at the 5 references to "Sathya Sai Baba". All of them have to do with SSB's followers, not his person:

  • Ref 1: "Claims by followers of Sathya Sai Baba..."
  • Ref 2: "...objections to the claim made by followers of Sathya Sai Baba..."
  • Ref 3: "I respect the faith of the followers of Sathya Sai Baba..."
  • Ref 4: "However, followers of the Sathya Sai Baba insist..."
  • Ref 5: "The devotees of the Southern guru say Sai Baba had said that he will be reborn eight years after his Samadhi and meet his followers to solve their problems. Sathya Sai Baba was born eight years later after Sai Baba's death, on November 23, 1926."

Once again, you are inaccurately paraphrasing the article. This article deals with: 1) Shirdi Sai Baba's Followers; 2) A case to restrain people from claiming others are incarnations of Shirdi Sai Baba and 3) Sathya Sai Baba's Followers. The SSB Wiki article is not about his followers and is therefore irrelevant SSS108 talk-email 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And who is the most imported person who should be restrained from claiming that he is a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba? Clearly, it is Sathya Sai Baba. So that makes the article 100% relevant. Andries 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion. We are not discussing your opinion. We are discussing the newspaper article. You are drawing your own inferences and trying to pass of your own interpretations and conclusions. The article itself does not pertain directly to Sathya Sai Baba's person. I don't know how many times I have to make this point. SSS108 talk-email 22:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the followers of Shirdi Sai win/won the court case then the title of this article would be Sathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram not Sathya Sai Baba. How can this be not relevant? Andries 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, according to the newspaper article, the alleged court case would prevent FOLLOWERS from claiming that othes are reincarnations of Shirdi Sai Baba. Nowhere does the article state that people cannot use the name "Sai Baba". You are not sticking to facts. You are POV pushing, speculating and drawing inferences. Once again proving you are incapable of neutrality and being objective. SSS108 talk-email 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 Why the revert reg. Robert Priddy?

As I stated many times before, the question what Robert Priddy wrote or not wrote is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of opinion because you can easily read his book and website. What Priddy wrote is sourced to a reputable source. (Shepherd) According to the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:NPOV opinions have to be attributed, not facts. For example, we do not write in Wikipedia, "according to the geographer, Mr. Knowitall, London is a city in England". SSS108 please explain by referring to policies and guidelines why attribution to Shepherd of what Priddy wrote is necessary or commendable. Thanks in advance. Andries 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not need to attribute the fact that someone said something if that information is available from a reliable source, but you cannot state that the "something" that was said is a fact. Subtle, but important distinction. Your example is not applicable, as the fact that London is a city in England is obviously very easily verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the difference. What Priddy wrote is very easily verifiable too. Andries 18:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct wording should be: "According to Kevin Shepherd, the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway Robert Priddy expressed the opinion that SSB was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan." Otherwise it reads as a fact. If it is a fact, then you shoulkd be able to find multiple reliable sources that descibe that fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that your criteria "multiple reliable source" to distinguish a fact from an opinion is wrong. You cannot have any reasonable doubt about what Priddy wrote, as this can be verified very easily. An analogy, Mein Kampf is not considered a reliable source for anything, but if a reliable source writes that Mein Kampf in chapter "The Jewish Conspiracy" states "The Jews are involved in international financial banking" then this is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact and does not need to be attributed. There can be no reasonable doubt about the literal words in the books by either Priddy or Hitler. Andries 18:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Shepherd did not voice an opinion. It cannot be a matter of opinion what Robert Priddy wrote as this can be verified very very easily. In other words, it should not be attributed. Andries 18:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, If that is the case, do not cite Sheppherd. Cite Priddy directly,if there is a relaible source that describes what Priddy said, that is. Otherwise, you can remove the text altogether. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Shepherd is the reliable source that described what Priddy wrote. SSS108 stated that he does not consider Priddy a reliable source, but has not voiced such objections against Shepherd. Andries 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Shepherd did not try to give a summary of Priddy's writings, but stayed very very close to Priddy's original. If the former were the case then I admit Shepherd statement about Priddy's could be considered an opinion and should possible be attributed. Andries 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Readers do not have the means to make an assessment on how close or not Shepperd is quoting Priddy, hence, the statement needs to be attributed to Shepperd and not stated as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, they have. It takes only second to check what Priddy wrote or did not write on his homepage. An analogy if the New York times states e.g. that the Wikipedia article mantra stated on 17 Sept. 2006 18:10 UTC that a mantra is a magic spell then is this an opinion or a statement of fact? Clearly the latter, because there can be no reasonable doubt about it as it can be checked in seconds. There can be no reasonable doubt about what Priddy did or did not write. I will file yet again a request for comments. Andries 20:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Readers have the means to verify what Priddy in seconds wrote by googling on "V.K. Narasimhan 1993 murders accomplice Robert Priddy". I cannot do it here because this may be forbidden by the arbcom decision. Andries 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Googling is not a way to assert WP:V. If you have no other reliable sources than one website, then you need to attribute text to the author of thr website and not assert these as facts. Is that simple. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 20:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, the book by Shepherd (not a website) already makes the statement verifiable and refers to Robert Priddy's website so that it makes it verifiable for readers in another way. Please explain why it can be opinion what Robert Priddy did or did not write regarding the 1993 murders when this can be found in seconds by anyone using google. Clearly it is fact what Priddy wrote or did not write and not an opinion and hence it can be written down as a fact. How much more verifiable do you want it?Andries 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC) amended 21:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a request for comments because I have the feeling that we have not come a millimeter closer and will not come a millimeter even if we continue to discuss this for weeks. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy Andries 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to obtain a copy of the book in question. However, it appears to be a book in which a section is devoted to Sathya Sai Baba that is wholly critical of him. If the section is wholly critical of Sathya Sai Baba and solicits negative personal experiences (as evidenced by the reference to Priddy), this would be in violation of the ArbCom ruling. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba (as it appears the author has a one-sided agenda to push). SSS108 talk-email 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you misinterpret the arbcom ruling. Personal experiences that have (indirectly) been reported in reputable sources are fine to use here and in the article when they are sourced to the reputable sources. Andries 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC Summary

dispute - statement by involved editors
  • The way I see this is that for controversial material, what a single author writes needs to be taken with cum grano salis, and not assert it in any way as a fact as to not mislead readers. There is nothing wrong with saying "XYZ in his book ABC writes that so-and-so said this-and-that". But there is a lot that is wrong in saying "So-and-so said this and that", when the this-and-that is highly controversial material. See WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What Robert Priddy writes regarding the 1993 murders is described by book by Kevin Shepherd with undisputed reputability. There can be no reasonable doubt that Shepherd correctly describes what Priddy wrote regarding the 1993 murder case as this can be checked by every reader in seconds by googling on "V.K. Narasimhan 1993 murders accomplice Robert Priddy". So it is not a matter of opinion what Robert Priddy wrote. Wikipedia:NPOV says that opinions have to be attributed, not facts. What Robert Priddy did or did not write on his homepage is a matter of fact and hence should not be attributed to the book by Kevin Shepherd. Another way that enables the reader to verify that Shepherd correctly described Priddy's writings are the references to Robert Priddy's website in Shepherd's book. Andries 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jossie. One cannot include a potentially libelous comment on the Sathya Sai Baba page without referencing it to a reputable or reliable source as per WP:BLP and WP:V. SSS108 talk-email 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments

From what I understand, the disputed attribtuion is in this sentence:

"According to Kevin Shepherd, the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway Robert Priddy expressed the opinion that SSB was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan."

To me, the correct question here is this: If we take the sentence without the Shepherd attribution, is that sentence disputed or not? If no one can seriously dispute the sentence is true, then I think a footnote citation will suffice. If, however, a reasonable person could dispute that the sentence, then we have to explicitly attribute it as "Shepherd's opinion".

Of course, I have no idea what side of this debate that puts me on. Does anyone doubt "the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway Robert Priddy expressed the opinion that SSB was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan." ? There's a couple of things that could be in dispute there. We could doubt Priddy was the former national leader. We could doubt that he expressed the opinion. And we could doubt that that opinion was based on information given to him by his friend VK Narasimha. If any reasonable person can doubt any of those, we have to attribute that sentence to Shepherd.

Why exactly are we citing Shepherd's quotation of Priddy if people can access Priddy directly on his website? Why not just cut Shepherd out of the equation all together and cite Priddy's writings direction?

Lastly, I should point out that the sentence, as it currently stands, needs to be reworded if it is kept. "According to shepherd, the former national leader..." makes it seem, at first, like Shepherd is the former national leader. If we keep the Shepherd attribution, try "Author Kevin Shepherd claims that Priddy, the former national leader..." . Also unclear is the "accomplice to the 1993 murders among others based on information given..." This makes it seem at first like there are others, aside from Priddy who make the claim, when I think the actual meaning is that priddy claims there were several different murders.

--Alecmconroy 08:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There can be a dispute about the fact that Robert Priddy was the former Norwegian leader so yes, I agree, this part of the sentence can be attributed to Shepherd. Same for whether V.K. Narasimhan was a close friend of Priddy. But there can be no dispute what Priddy wrote or did not write on his homepage regarding the 1993 murders as this can be verified by anyone in seconds, so I think that that part of the sentence should not be attributed to Shepherd. The reputability of Priddy's writings are disputed by user:SS108, so that is why I chose Shepherd as a reference for what Priddy wrote instead of quoting Priddy directly from his book or homepage. Andries 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a whole can of worms as to whether Priddy's is reliable enough for his claim to merit inclusion without its inclusion constituting undue weight. Quote Shepherd quoting Priddy won't buy you any extra reliability-- if the "Priddy claims..." is just too unreliable to merit inclusion, then adding the words "According to Shepherd, Priddy claims..." won't save it. --Alecmconroy 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, are you saying the entire reference can be removed? SSS108 talk-email 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries said, "there can be no dispute what Priddy wrote or did not write on his homepage regarding the 1993 murders as this can be verified by anyone in seconds". First of all, this information is not on Priddy's "homepage". It is on Priddy's Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three). Secondly, no one has classified the police shootings as "murders". Even the CBCID in India (which had access to evidence that no one had/has access to) did not classify this as "murders". The police claimed self-defence as they had to confront 4 assailants who viciously murdered 2 people with knives and injured 2 others.

I am also disputing Shepherd's wholly critical writings on Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy's writings are rightly disputed by me. They have not been published by reputable media whatsoever. Shepherd wrote negatively against Sathya Sai Baba and his writings are not balanced or fair. I think the entire reference to Shepherd should be removed as Shepherd's book is the only source that makes reference to Priddy. Otherwise, this reference is non-notable, non-reputable and non-reliable.

Priddy's claims about the 1993 police shootings are based on speculation. Priddy's claims about V.K. Narasimhan are wholly disputed by many devotees and proponents. V.K. Narasimhan remained an ardent devotee of Sathya Sai Baba until his death. Furthermore, V.K. Narasimhan openly believed Sathya Sai Baba to be God incarnate. He repeatedly addressed SSB as "Bhagavan" and wrote eulogies that reflected his deep devotion. For example, see the article that VKN wrote 4 months prior to his death about SSB Ref. SSS108 talk-email 16:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Shepherd's book is a fine scholarly source. I strongly disagree with SSS108 statement that there is something wrong with it. The book is biased towards facts and evidence. Andries 18:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what I'm hearing is that you do accept that it is a fact that "Robert Priddy SAYS that SSB was an accomplice to murder" and that "Priddy SAYS this opinion is based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan.". But you do not accept what Priddy says is true.
If that's the case, then there's no reason to drag Shepherd into this. (I, of course, haven't the foggiest who Priddy, Shepherd, and SSB actually are, of course). If we all believe it is a fact that Priddy says this, then either we included it and attribute it to Priddy, or we don't include it-- but I can't think of any reason to include it but attribute it to Shepherd.
So, to me, the sentence IS verifiable, and it IS backed up by a reliable source. (since Priddy is a reliable source for what Priddy says). But I still can't answer if the claim Priddy makes is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, or whether even mentioning it would be giving it undue weight. Look to how the mainstream media has covered SSB. Are there any newspaper articles, magazine articles, documentaries, books, etc that mention Priddy's claim? If not-- probably best to exclude it as something that exists simply in the blogosphere, but hasn't actually impacted the reliable discourse on SSB yet.
And if you do include it, of course, it would seem prudent to include a lot of information explaining why the claim is disputed-- all the stuff you told me, for example.
--Alecmconroy

Funny enough, when it comes to Shepherd and his "bias" (Andries word) that is okay. But when it comes to Kasturi (who has been referenced in numerous reputable sources) that is not okay. More duplicity from Andries.

Alecmconroy, no. Priddy is not a reliable source. He has not been cited by any reputable or reliable media. The only reference to Priddy has been in this single book by Shepherd. That's it. No media articles. No newspapers. No magazines. No tv documentaries. Nothing. Therefore, it is my opinion that this entire reference to Priddy should be removed because it does not have any kind of established reliability. One reference to one source means that the citation lacks reputability or reliability. Period. SSS108 talk-email 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One extensive reference in a reputable scholarly source (Shepherd's book) means that the citation is both reputable and reliable. There are only few substantial reputable scholarly sources for this article available, somewhat in contrast to the beliefs and practices article. Jossi gave a list of possible scholarly source that I believe are either not substantial or more suitable for the beliefs and practices article. I do not think that Alecmconroy meant to say that Priddy is a reliable reputable source in itself but Alecmconroy meant to say that Priddy is a reliable source for the question if Priddy wrote what Shepherd described that Priddy wrote.Andries 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 05:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The book is wholly critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, it is not scholarly, but biased. Even you admitted to this bias. A baised book is not a reputable or reliable source. Since you already conceded the book was biased, I don't see how this is any longer an issue. SSS108 talk-email 14:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shepherd's scholarly book is biased towards facts and evidence and that is why it is heavily critical about SSB. Bias towards facts and evidence only increases its reputability. Andries 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your unsupported opinion. If Shepherd's book is so "biased towards facts and evidence" one is left to wonder why none of his alleged "facts and evidence" has ever been published by other reputable media. Not even one other source. This is indicative of poorly sourced material and it will be removed for this reason and for the reason that the section in his book that deals with Sathya Sai Baba is wholly critical with no other viewpoints. SSS108 talk-email 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the poorly sourced ref to Shepherd in accordance with WP:BLP: Does not meet standards of WP:RS which fails the test for Evaluating Sources. SSS108 talk-email 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I will revert. The book by Shepherd is perfectly reputable. Your flawed way of reasoning is that a source cannot be reputable if it is critical of SSB. Andries 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)#
Brian Steel described on his website Shepherd as scholar when discussing Shepherd's previous work "gurus rediscovered"
Brian Steel wrote "the following critical statements by the scholar Kevin R. D. Shepherd in his work,Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori (Cambridge, Anthropographia Publications, 1986) indicate:"


"However, some of [Shirdi] Sai Baba's latter day following have a grievance with which it is easy to sympathize. This relates to the claims made for a certain namesake of the original [Shirdi] Sai Baba, who encourages an obsession with wonder-working and is believed to be the avataric reincarnation of the Shirdi saint." (Shepherd, Chapter 1)
"Hazrat Sai Baba of Shirdi is certainly not to be confused with those gurus who announce themselves as speedily returning reincarnations of him, and who even appropriate his name.(77)" (Shepherd, Chapter 3)
[Note 77] "Satya Sai Baba of Puttaparti was born in 1926 and claimed in 1940 to be a reincarnation of the Shirdi master. Fame accrued very quickly. It is reported that he would produce ash (udhi) from thin air, and likewise photos of Sai Baba, and gerua cloth which he said was from the kafni which Sai Baba used to wear." (Shepherd)
Andries 17:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries, and where has Brian Steel's comments about Shepherd or Sathya Sai Baba been published by reputable or reliable sources? You are citing wholly non-reliable references. Again, this point to the low standards you use and abuse to push your POV. SSS108 talk-email 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am only assessing the reputability of Shepherd. This does not have the be done by citing reputable sources. Andries 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The standards for a book are different. Shepherd's book appears to be self-published and does not meet the standards of a reputable or reliable source. The fact remains that the information attributed to Shepherd has not been published by any reputable and reliable sources other than him. It is a poorly sourced reference that cannot be cross-referenced or cross-checked. His book has not been peer-reviewed either. SSS108 talk-email 05:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Shepherd's scholarly book is not self-published and is a perfectly reputable. If you are raising the bar so high that only peer-review articles and books can be used then let us remove Haraldsson and most other sources from this article. Then this article can be fully based on the two peer-reviewed articles available i.e. Nagel's 1994 article the Sai Parodox and the article by Nagel about Wolf Messing. Andries 10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Shepherd and Nagel, Dr Erlendur Haraldsson (PhD, Professor Emeritus Faculty of Social Science) is a highly reputable academic [3] who has appeared in documentaries [4], published books (even in cooperation with other PhD authors) [5], has published in numerous journals [6], participated in conference proceedings [7], has a website [8] and has spoken in invited lectures and conference presentations [9]. Neither Shepherd or Nagel come close to Haraldsson's reputability. Period. SSS108 talk-email 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Haraldsson does not have the skills to investigate this kind of paranormal claims i.e. he is not a magician. Andries 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic logic. Using your logic (illogic) then one must similarly conclude that Nagel does not have skills to investigate SSB either because she is not a magician. SSS108 talk-email 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nagel never tried to assess and analyze SSB's materializations unlike Haraldsson. Andries 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, Haraldsson is regarded a reputable source regarding paranormal phenomena. He been published in numerous journals, books and publications pertaining to paranormal phenomena [10]. He does not need to be a magician. That is simply your attempt to discredit his scholarship. I consider this discussion thread ended. I am not going to engage you in your squabble any more. SSS108 talk-email 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly the only one who asserts that to assess paranormal claims one needs expert knowledge from a magician. James Randi has voiced this opinion too. Andries 17:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal Of Reference To Shepherd

I created a sandbox that highlights the main points regarding this issue: User:SSS108/Kevin_Shepherd.

The publisher (Citizen Initiative, Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom) is not listed on booktrust's UK publishers. The only books published by "Citizen Initiative" (utilizing an advanced search on Google for "citizen initiative" + "publisher(s)" / "publishing" / "publication(s)") are those of Shepherd's. No other books have been published by "Citizen Initiative".

I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding "Citizen Initiative") by email and Mrs. Barringer said:

  • "Sorry - have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers."

I also contacted booktrust.org (regarding "Citizen Initiative") by email and Mr. Smith said:

  • "I have never heard of Citizen Initiative, but their titles – almost exclusively written by Kevin Shepherd – are listed on the Nielsen BookData database of books in print. CI also appears to act as a distributor for titles published by Anthropographia Publications (again, these books are all by Mr Shepherd), Philosophical Press and New Media Books Ltd."

Since Shepherd's books are printed by a publisher that exclusively publishes his works (not publishing other author's works), his books most certainly appear to be self-published. Therefore, this reference to Shepherd should be removed for violating:

This reference should also be removed in accordance with the opinion of Alecmconroy (in response to Andries RFC):

  • "Well, that's a whole can of worms as to whether Priddy's is reliable enough for his claim to merit inclusion without its inclusion constituting undue weight. Quote Shepherd quoting Priddy won't buy you any extra reliability-- if the "Priddy claims..." is just too unreliable to merit inclusion, then adding the words "According to Shepherd, Priddy claims..." won't save it. --Alecmconroy" (Reference)

Publications By Citizen Initiative The following three books have been published by "Citizen Initiative":

Information About Kevin R.D. Shepherd: There are no online references to Shepherd's qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or university references to Shepherd (although his books have been published as far back as 1984). SSS108 talk-email 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the informatio about the publishing house Citizen Initative, so I will re-consider my opinion on the book by Shepherd. Andries 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you should have checked your facts before you nonchalantly said, "No, Shepherd's scholarly book is not self-published and is a perfectly reputable" [11] [12]. I am getting tired of doing the footwork for you. SSS108 talk-email 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

More Edits?

For transparency, I noticed the following thread by Andries Ref. Once again, it appears that Andries is trying to include yet more controversial material in the Sathya Sai Baba article. I would suggest that if this is the case that it be discussed here and a consensus obtained first before attempting to include it in the article. SSS108 talk-email 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not seek concensus but instead resort to Wikipedia:dispute resolution, always starting with a discussion on this talk page. Establishing concensus when contributors have such widely divergent opinions on a certain subject is in most cases impossible. Andries 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Since Andries was so insistent on removing the section about Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed Lawsuit because it was a primary source, then I would like to know why the following primary sources are being cited, violating WP:RS.

  • Primary source references:
  • Former MP Tony Colman's comment to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  • Tom Sackville's concern about Educare.
  • Lousewies van der Laan's question to the European Parliament.
  • The US Travel advisory that does not even mention SSB's name.

Unless these references are souced to reputable secondary sources, I will be removing them citing the same Wikipedia Policy that was cited to remove Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed Lawsuit, i.e., WP:RS: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." SSS108 talk-email 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Books References

Andries is yet, once again, trying to re-include the books by Steel and Priddy under the followers section when they are not followers. Their former, flowery and devotional books have since been retracted by them. I suggest Andries submit yet another RFC. He has not obtained consensus on this controversial edit that is many months old. Andries should try to obtain consensus with other editors before making long-term and known controversial edits. SSS108 talk-email 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I do not care if you agree with my edits. I will request yet another request for comments. Andries 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Request for comments regarding books by then followers, now ex-followers

  • statement by user:Andries I think that the book by Robert Priddy and two books by Brian Steel (they are now critics of SSB) are fine books written when they were still followers and can be mentioned in the subsection books written by followers, like the other books. I see no valid reason why they cannot be mentioned there or why they should be treated differently from other books by followers. 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless the books are self-published, these can be used as references. If these are self-published, they can be mentioned in a further reading section, if they provide information that is deemed useful to readers. The "further reading" section should not make a distinction. Just list relevant books alphabetically, regardless who the authors are. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
They are not self-published, but user:SSS108 thinks that they cannot even be mentioned in the further reading/bibliography section which I think is misguided at best. Andries 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why these cannot be mentioned, if the works are published by a reputable publisher. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Publishers are of comparable reputability as other pro-SSB books. Andries 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar

Jossie, the reason why I dissent with the inclusion of these books is because they are being listed under a followers section when they are not followers. Furthermore, Steel and Priddy have retracted their former devotion as expressed in these books. To include these books on the page is nothing less than a propaganda campaign by Andries. Why include their former devotion-filled books when they are no longer devotees and considered themselves being under the influence of a cult when they wrote them? SSS108 talk-email 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should include the books but put them in the ex-followers section. That would be the truth since they are no longer followers. Freelanceresearch 06:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there is no need to separate the books under such headings. If books are useful suggested reading, then these should be all listed under Further reading without making abny distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, I find your edits satsifactory. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 04:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, if a book has a review that was published by reputable media, can we include the link next to the book? SSS108 talk-email 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Highly unusual to do that in a "Further reading" section, as there may be competing/conflicting reviews. If the book is a very notable one, you could create an article about the book and provide links to the different reviews of the book, both positive and negative. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, that the is no need to separate books by followers from those by ex-followers. List them all together and leave it up to the readers to decide which books to buy or check out from the library. HeBhagawan 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

TRUE MASTERS AND CHARLATAINS

Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, ask the living masters of our time. It's there. The same truth. So please, give us all a break.

Yogi. November 29th 2006.