Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

moved comment

Moved from article by Willmcw 00:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC), who did not write it.

• Steel, Brian "An interesting and serious attempt to present a balanced picture of SSB. However, this long article is a good illustration of the strengths and weaknesses of Wiki digests and of its philosophy of Free Content (allowing use by anyone and editing by anyone) since, although both 'sides' are represented in this case [..], some sections of the Wiki essay are in a constant state of flux as supporters and critics of SSB vie for supremacy for their point of view, with occasional injections of propaganda and malice."

saisathyasai.com

I added some relevant, additional links, and they were removed. I am the webmaster to SaiSathyaSai.com and considering that most of the Anti-Sai Sites listed are duplicates of each other (for example SaiGuru.net and the Hetnet.ExBaba sites) and considering that Brian Steel and Robert Priddy's sites are listed on these two sites (qualifying them as multiple links), I think I am perfectly entitled to provide a link specific section that discusses each these sites in depth. Why isn't this allowed?

- Joe Moreno 15 July 2005

You are referring to these two links:

• ExBaba.com Deception
• SaiGuru.net Deception

I removed them for two reasons. First, we already have a link to saisathyasai.com/. On the home page of that link are links to the pages you added. There is no need to add more links to the same site. Second, they seemed to be deceptively labelled. -Willmcw 05:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, WHY then do you allow the "hetnet.exbaba" site and the "saiguru.net" site when they are mirror sites to each other? The "hetnet.exbaba" site has duplicated all of Brian Steel and Robert Priddy's articles on their site. So why do you allow these sites when one link would suffice to the "hetnet.exbaba" site? "chello.no" (Priddy's site), "saiguru.net" and "hetnet.exbaba" all list multiple links under "Websites of critical former followers, skeptics and other critics" and "Media Articles". Why are they allowed to do this when one link would suffice?

It is clear that some sort of bias is going on. Am I allowed to post multiple links from my one site on other categories as well? Or is that reserved for Anti-Sai sites only? I think we would all like to clearly know what the policy is for posting links on this site.

Sincerely,

- Joe Moreno

I'll take a look at the links you mention. If they truly mirror each other then there is no reason to have both. Our policy is here: wikipedia:external links. Note that this article already has more links than most, so adding more is not attractive. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean these two sites?

• home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/
• saiguru.net/english/

I don't see any resemblance between them. -Willmcw 07:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, all the content on saiguru.net/english/ is duplicate of content on hetnet.ne/~exbaba/ When I say duplicate, the CONTENT is the same; the layout of each site is different. You are admitting (perhaps unknowingly) duplicate linkage and thus duplication of the same material. Chspnll 09:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, yes, those are the two sites I am talking about. If you look at my SaiGuru.net Deception page, I provide a complete list to ALL of SaiGuru.net's links. 98% of them are an EXACT duplicate from ExBaba.com. The remaining 2% are outdated articles or were cut and pasted from a newspaper, etc. Click the "articles", "news", "media", "experiences", "sai org" and "conclusions" links, in the menu, to view the comparisons. Robert Priddy has several sites: home.chello.no/~reirob/ and home.no.net/anir/Sai/.

Thanks,

-Joe

Joe, I think there are several reason why your website deserves only one link, if it deserve to be listed at all. I doubt if it deserves to be listed here because of your intellectual dishonesty, your shameless defamation, libel and ad hominem attacks on the critics of SSB. The reasons why it deserves only one link are as follows.

1. There are already many external links than recommended for Wikipedia.
2. Your website was only writtenb by one author, i.e. Gerald Joe Moreno
3. Other website like exbaba.com and saiguru.net consists of articles of many different authors, not only by critical former members but also other sources. Some of the articles on exbaba are of scholarly quality e.g. by Steel, Dadlani, Nagel, and Priddy. Some of Nagel's work was published in the official magazin of the Free University of Amsterdam about New religious movements, i.e. her 1994 article Sai Paradox. The exbaba website is huge but has only one link, so I think it is totally inappropriate and unfair to give your website more space than exbaba
4. Your website shows great intellectual dishonesty and lack of reasonableness
5. Your website contains ad hominem attacks on the critics of SSB.

Andries 16:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Andries, I think anyone with any semblence of fairness can see that my articles are not any of the things that you ascribe to them. I can back up ALL of my points of contention with screen captures, links and caches. I think anyone who views my Affidavits page can see, first-hand, the kind of person you are and the kind of bias you have. And I will note that in the 9 months my site has been online, you have not come forward with even ONE single article that factually discredits ANY of my articles. So if you want to talk about ad hominem attacks, look in the mirror. And the proof that this site is biased is clearly shown when Reinier is allowed to post his site TWICE (you providing a link to his lamentable attacks against me) but I am NOT allowed to post my link in reply. So if you want to talk about dishonesty and deceit, this site reeks of it. Why is Reinier allowed to post his site and a second link about me, but I am NOT allowed to post my site and a second link about him? I think everyone can see what kind of people run this site and I honestly don't expect these comments to be allowed to stay here. Again, I have nothing to fear and I have nothing to suppress. Apparently, you do.

-Joe Moreno

Can you please post the specific links that you are referring to? It's hard to know which ones you mean. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Joe, I may overlook something, but I see only one link, not two, to Reinier's reply to you. Andries 21:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Under: "Websites of critical former followers, skeptics and other critics", there is a Main Link to Reiniers hetnet site.

Andries posted a Second Link (from the hetnet site) under: "Rebuttals and Surrebuttals of criticisms" named: "Reinier van der Sandt answers Gerald Joe Moreno".

My Main Link is posted under: "Rebuttals and Surrebuttals of criticisms".

In response to Reiniers page against me, I posted my Second Link and it was deleted. Now if Reinier's site can post a Main Link to his site and a Second Link to his page about me, why can't I post my Main Link and a Second Link about Reinier?

Furthermore, there are multiple links from the hetnet domain (Reinier's site) also posted under "Media Articles". However, when it comes to me, "all of sudden", only ONE link is allowed. If you want to set the standard, it should be applied equally.

So if I cannot post more than one link to my site, then the same should be applied to the hetnet site. Fair is fair.

-Joe Moreno

---

Okay, here is the list of links that clearly shows the bias FOR Anti-Sai Sites (Pro-Sai sites are ONLY allowed to post ONE link, while Anti-Sai sites are allowed to post multiple links:

BRIAN STEEL: 4 LINKS:

• Brian Steel's scholarly website about Sathya Sai Baba
• Annoted research bibliography in three parts part 1, Items of a scholarly or academic nature or provenance, collected by Brian Steel
• Annoted research bibliography in three parts part 2, Work Critical of SSB and his Mission by non-devotees (including ex-devotees), collected by Brian Steel
• Annotated research bibliography in three parts part 3, A Basic Bibliography of Works about Sathya Sai Baba by the SSO and his Devotees, collected by Brian Steel

REINIER VAN DER SANDT: 4 LINKS:

• Concerned former Dutch devotees of Sathya Sai Baba Extensive website that contains scholarly studies and videos of alleged materializations
• a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment by Matthijs van der Meer, originally published in the Dutch New Age magazine Spiegelbeeld October issue 2000
• Reinier van der Sandt answers Gerald Joe Moreno

ROBERT PRIDDY: 3 LINKS:

• Myths promoted by Sathya Sai Baba another wesbite by Robert Priddy
• "I lost the desire to live" B. N. was a follower of Sai Baba for 17 years article by Bettina Vilmun, translated from the Danish daily national newspaper B.T. (tabloid) (January 312002)
• Robert Priddy's extensive website about the Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai organisation

SAIGURU.NET: MIRROR SITE TO EXBABA SITE: 4 LINKS:

• Listed under "Media and Governments", ref 1.
• Allegations concerning Sathya Sai Baba Multi lingual critical website of ex-followers
• A Friend in India to All the World article in the New York Times by journalist Keith Bradsher December 1, 2002
• Divine Downfall Mick Brown's article about the sexual abuse allegations in The Telegraph newspaper UK (Oct. 2000)

SAISATHYASAI: MY SITE: 1 LINK:

• Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba Examined by Gerald Joe Moreno

LINK DELETED: Gerald Joe Moreno Answers Reineir Van Der Sandt]

Any Questions?

-Joe Moreno

Links to 3rd party articles, like reprints of New York Times articles, are in a special category. You say that SAIGURU.NET is a mirror of EXBABA, and before you said it was a mirror of HETNET, but I didn't see the duplications. Can you provide the links which show them to be mirrors? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, then how do you explain Brian Steel's links? They are NOT referenced to "third party articles".

And you have not answered why I am NOT allowed to post my rebuttal to Reinier's article (his article against me is not a "third party article".

Obviously, you have not researched ExBaba.com. exbaba.com is a frame site that opens up the home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/ site. They are exactly the same. Just view the source code for ExBaba.com. So when I refer to either one of these sites, they refer to the same thing.

I already provided you with the link that conclusively shows that SaiGuru.net is a mirror site to ExBaba.com (or, if you prefer, hetnet.nl/~ex-baba). Once again, Click Here to view the main page. Or, Click Here for the "Articles" category. I provide the link on SaiGuru.net and the duplicate link. Cut and paste them to compare.

-Joe Moreno

We don't have a link to ExBaba.com, so what does it matter if home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/ is a mirror of it? The saisathyasai.com may carry some of the same articles as home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/, but that does not make them mirrors unless all of the content is the same. I am sure that many of the "pro-Baba" sites carry the same articles. saiguru.net/english/ doesn't look like the other sites either. "Mirror" means exact copy. You haven't proven anything. -Willmcw 21:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Okay Willmcw. Thank you for saying that. I am sure that since this is the case (with SaiGuru.net), I can post my articles on another domain and post a link to them. I'll just make sure the layout is different and add a few articles. That should level the playing field :)

Also, you did not respond about Brian Steel's articles. Why is he allowed to post all those links? I think we all would like to know. One link per site. Remember?

-Joe Moreno

Yes, once your articles are printed in the New York Times. Regarding Steel, I agree. I'll remove the extra links. -Willmcw 22:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

PS - both Steel and a pro-Baba site called Saibabalinks.org have additional links up in the "Books" section because they have bibliographies. -Willmcw 22:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks Willcmw. But Brian's first bibliography page contained links to the other two pages. So all three links were not necessary. Also, Saibabalinks.org does not index their links like Wikipedia. People can (and have) posted multiple links on their site.

Sincerely,

Joe Moreno

Right, so I cut the three bibliograohy links down to one. I'm not sure I follow your point about Saibabalinks.org. Are you saying we should remove it? It seems to have substantive information. -Willmcw 23:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

No, I am not saying to remove it. I am saying on their site, they list links differently than Wikipedia. I am also uncertain why my link refuting Reinier's attacks keep disappearing. I cleared out my cache and refreshed my page and my link disappears. If this page is about Sathya Sai Baba, I think we need to maintain the focus and remove personal attacks that have nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba. Reinier's attacks against me should not be placed on this page. I do not feel that my page should be placed here either. However, if Reinier's page about me is allowed to be placed on this site, I think mine should be allowed too. So something needs to be done about this. What are your thoughts, Willmcw?

-Joe Moreno

I still don't know what Saibabalinks.org has to so with this discussion. Are you saying it should stay or go, and why? If you want my overall opinion I think the entire "rebuttal and surrebuttal" section should be deleted. This page already has too many links. 20 is a large number, this page has more than 45. -Willmcw 04:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

~

Joe, you started making personal attacks on a variety of SSB critics on your website. This alone makes it highly questionable whether your website deserves to be listed here. As a response one of those critics (Reinier) made a website refuting your personal attacks on him. Listing the one without the other is unacceptable. Andries 04:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, I was referring to your post-script when you said, "PS - both Steel and a pro-Baba site called Saibabalinks.org have additional links up in the 'Books' section because they have bibliographies". Maybe I misunderstood your post. I feel the link should STAY. It is one of the largest online resources for Sathya Sai Baba.

The section you referred to should be renamed "Rebuttals". Because Ram Das Awle, The Sai Critic and my site, SaiSathyaSai.com, are all unique sites with unique views that are specific to "Rebuttals". Both Anti and Pro Sai Sites tend to repeat the same information over and over. Consequently, I feel that these three sites are unique in content and perspective and should be kept. My site is the ONLY systematized site that addresses the "other side" to the Sathya Sai Baba Debate. It would be unfair to remove it.

There are two links to the RadioSai site. The main RadioSai link should replace the other 2 links: The two RadioSai Links are:

• Radiosai Monthly journal on Sri Sathya Sai Baba
• Thought for the Day, written by Baba

And should, in my opinion, be replaced by:

• Radio Sai Org.

The other Sathya Sai Baba links are relevant.

There are several links that are included in Anti-Sai sites that are referenced under different sites. For example, on the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site (Located Here), is a duplicate to Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba long article by Dr. Reinhart Hummel. This link, in my view, should be removed.

It seems to me that only main domain sites, or main links to main index pages should be allowed. Otherwise, things will degenerate into innumerable links.

This is my opinion and I think it is the only fair way for everyone to have their fair share in expressing their viewpoints. After all, I have links to refute just about every Anti-Sai link listed here. If you allow it with other sites, you are going to have to allow it with mine. If I am ONLY allowed to post my main index domain, which contains innumerable links, to innumerable topics and authors, the SAME standard must be applied to ALL sites. No exceptions.

Andries: Once again, it is clear you have not properly informed yourself about the "personal attacks" between me and Reinier. First of all, Reinier started attacking me 4 and half months BEFORE I even wrote one word about him. So get some facts right. Secondly, ALL of my pages about Anti-Sai Activists are backed up with screen captures, links, emails and caches. Consequently, your perception of "personal attacks" is biased. If you feel that Reinier is allowed to post his pages against me, I am entitled to post mine. It appears you have an agenda of suppression. If my "personal attacks" are unsubstantiated, you should allow the general public to make up their own minds, instead of YOU trying to make it up for them by trying to have my site removed. Enough said.

~Joe Moreno

The well written article by Hummel http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=572&emne=Sai%20Baba Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: SSB] is written indepdently of what ex-devotees did on a different website. I did not remove your website, only I oppose that your website gets more space than other websites. Andries 05:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

And I oppose that Anti-Sai Sites get more space than other websites. And my Reinier Pages are now linked from another domain. So what is the problem now?

~Joe Moreno

Joe, thanks for explaining your point about Saibabalinks.org. But you're not going to negotiate a second link to your website. I am inclined to remove the entire section, so don't push your luck. As I mentioned before, this page alreay has too many link. I'd far sooner see more deleted than added. How about ten each, pro and con? -Willmcw 05:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, it is not a second link to my saisathyasai.com website. It is my personal response listed on vishvarupa.com. If Reinier can do it, so can I. Or are you taking sides?

Reinier is the webmaster to the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site and listed a SECOND link from home.hetnet.nl/~r.v.d.sandt/

Since you ALLOW this, then you MUST allow me to post my saisathyasai.com and a SECOND link from vishvarupa.com/~r.v.d.sandt/ site.

And if my site is removed. I will take this issue to someone above you.

If you remove the section, my link needs to be put into another section. Otherwise, this site will be clearly shown to be dominated by Anti-Sai Activists who have an agenda of suppression. One way or another, the truth of this matter will be made known.

~Joe Moreno

exbaba is not Reinier's website: it is the website of the Dutch former followers, incl. me. He has not the final authority about the contents. His website in which he answers you is his website. Andries 06:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Another evaluation of this article for the interested reader

Apart from the evaluation by Brian Steel hereabove, there is another evaluation of this article

"This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Sathya Sai Baba". This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer). This article has been edited due to Anti-SSB Activists who refuse to allow editing to the Original Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba."

from saisathyasai.com Please do not link to this article because it contains slanderous ad hominem attacks on the critics of SSB.

Andries 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals and Surrebuttals of criticisms

• http://www.saibaba-aclearview.com/ SAI BABA and SEX: A Clear View Ram Das Awle's attempt to reconcile the allegations with the claims of Sathya Sai Baba
• http://www.geocities.com/the_sai_critic/ Follower's response to the allegations
• saisathyasai.com/ Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba Examined by Gerald Joe Moreno
• Reinier van der Sandt answers Gerald Joe Moreno
• Gerald Joe Moreno answers Reinier van der Sandt

I've deleted the section of the external links labelled "Rebuttals and Surrebuttals of criticisms". They are just websites conducting sometimes-ad hominem attacks on each other that do not help readers understand Sathya Sai Baba, the topic of our article. Given the very large number of links already in this article, whoever would like to add these or others needs to make a compelling arguement. -Willmcw 22:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, first of all, it is clear you did not read my site. My site addresses ALL of the articles dispersed against Sathya Sai Baba. There are a few pages devoted to the character (or lack thereof) of Anti-Sai Activists, which the general public is perfectly entitled to know about. This information is factual and referenced.

The very same thing is done on the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site (look in their letters section). It is clear you are biased and you can be certain that I will be creating a new page about this bias on the Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba. The overwhelming majority of my site has nothing to do with "ad hominem" attacks. It is clear that you have a bias against those directly challenge Anti-SSB activists. I wonder why?

Whose permission did you get to delete that section? It appears that you were thinking of deleting the section, but no one came to any consensus. You acted without having any sort of open discussion. You deleted a relevant section that applies to Sathya Sai Baba. Are you talking to someone "behind the scenes"? The Rebuttals section should have stayed. It was Andries to changed that section by putting an irrelevant link there and changing the category title. Since my site is specific to the claims made by Anti-Sai Activists, for whom this site has devoted an entire section, I am entitled to post my site that gives pertinent information about their claims.

I am going to request arbitration.

~Joe Moreno

We can put one link to one of your pages among the "pro"-sites section we already have. Which link do you prefer? Probably a home page would be best. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

My Arbitration Request:

I have a kind request. There is a problem on the Wikipedia Article For Sathya Sai Baba (SSB).

This article has links to both Pro and Anti SSB articles. However, my link is NOT being allowed. There was a section entitled "Rebuttals" that had only three links, including my site (SaiSathyaSai.com).

My site is the ONLY systematized site that specifically addresses (in my opinion) unsubstantiated and serious claims made on Anti-SSB sites. Since an entire section is devoted to Anti-SSB Sites, there should also be a Rebuttals section that provides information that happens to be 100% relevant to Sathya Sai Baba. Willmcw has gone to great extents to promote Anti-SSB sites and to remove sites that counter their claims. This is unfair and biased. It shouldn't be allowed. He removed the "Rebuttals" section without any open discussion. You can view the discussion here.

The current article for Sathya Sai Baba is, by no means, indicative of the majority opinion regarding SSB. The entire article is mottled with Anti-SSB remarks and links.

I believe that the Rebuttals section is relevant and the following three links should be reposted:

1) http://www.geocities.com/the_sai_critic/

2) saisathyasai.com

3) saibaba-aclearview.com

It is important to point out that NONE of the Pro-SSB links cited, provide any rebuttals to the Anti-SSB remarks and links. These three links are the ONLY ones that do.

Please tell me what I must do to have this situation resolved amicably and fairly.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

SSS108 04:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Joe Moreno

I'd like to add my complaint to Joe's. The link to my yahoogroup was removed without ANY discussion or consultation and I'm wondering WHY Willmcw is catering to the anti-Sai crowd who not only engage in ad hominem attacks on their sites but also quash rebuttals and free speech at EVERY turn and this site is a PERFECT example of it. In all actuality, the LAW is on OUR side in this issue. I'm wondering WHY you are showing preference to and allowing links to sites which spout totally unsubstantiated legal accusations with OBVIOUS ad hominem attacks and PROVEN lies (like exbaba.com) yet are totally biased in posting links to sites which dispute the allegations and additionally show LEGAL DOCUMENTATION which proves that some of the people leading the anti-Sai crusade have criminal or dubious backgrounds? In otherwords Willmcw, why is it perfectly ok for this group to disparage a highly revered spiritual leader and throw mud at him while not allowing any rebuttal or pertinent background info.? I'd like to know what planet you live on that unsubstantiated and HIGHLY suspicious legal allegations take precedence over documented LEGAL info? There have been numerous complaints on this board as to how the anti-Sais are deleting any postive background info. about Sai Baba. When I first came onto this board many months ago I complained about the way Andries controls the board like he thinks he owns it and now I see you have even deleted Joe Moreno's link too! When does this obvious anti-Sai Baba bias and disregard for First Amendment rights end, Willmcw? What you ought to do is rein in some of the people who have been monopolizing and obsessing over this board for way too long and give someone else a chance for once. We have all the documentation to show how dubious these allegations are and have ALWAYS provided links to the sites making the accusations. Now it's high time for you to do the same.

Lisa De Witt owner Persecutors_of_sathya_sai_baba Legal analysis and response to the allegations http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Persecutors_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba/?yguid=87369175

The First Amendment affects U.S. government bodies, not Wikipedia. I don't think that the Yahoogroups site is a good one for our readers because it is not publicly accessible. There is no compunction for us to proivide a perfectly fair assortment of weblinks. Our focus is on making our articles good and fair. This list of weblinks is already too long, we can toss them all if it brings editing peace. If there is something about the article itself that you'd like to discuss then I'm interested. -Willmcw 04:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The advice I was given was to go ahead and edit the page and add my main link. Since I have not edited this page more than 3-4 times, I have re-added my link under "Other Articles And Websites". I also corrected the pearls link as it had a comma instead of a period in the URL. Since Willmcw's focus is on "fairness", I do not expect any further problems with my site listing.

Sincerely,

Joe Moreno

Wikipedia:no personal attacks. Continued personal attacks are grounds for banning. I previously suggested that you add one link. You're not being persecuted - we treat all external links as a secondary matter. -Willmcw 07:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

When you as a public entity discriminate against a person or group it does become a First Amendment issue, sir. You are allowing a certain group to dominate this site while censoring others who are attempting to give a certain viewpoint. My link was removed WITHOUT consultation or discussion. It is the only thing I have been able to get put on this site in a year as Andries rules the site like he owns it. I have been dealing with this group outside of wikipedia for three years and it is the same story. They will censor and delete any information which is inconvenient to their cause and they will harass anyone who dares to tell the truth. My yahoogroup is audited because people in Andries group continued to harass and had to be booted. Anyone who can act like an adult can join my group.

There are documented wanted criminals in this group. For example, you have a link to apologeticsindex.org in this article. The owner of that site, Anton Hein, is wanted in California. He served six months in jail for lewd act upon a child and then absconded to the Netherlands. There is a warrant for his arrest on the San Diego County Sheriff's Dept. website. Apparently, a wanted felon is allowed to post his link but I am not.

As far as personal attacks, why is it ok for Andries to accuse Joe Moreno of ad hominem attacks when the anti-Sai sites are full of them? This personal attack against Joe Moreno seems to go totally unnoticed. Andries Dagneaux who is totally biased has no right to judge whether Moreno's site should be included in this section. The exbaba group blocked Joe's site from being able to access them just because he started refuting the allegations and they couldn't stand the competition. Andries is not the owner of wikipedia but apparently he thinks he is. When are you going to rein him in and quit enabling his very biased and obnoxious behavior toward those he disagrees with? Many people have complained about this and NOTHING has been done about it since I was here last year.

That's all I have to say for now.

Lisa De Witt

It isn't up to us to evaluate criminal complaints against webmasters, much less whatver cross allegations are going back and forth between you. We are here to write articles for an encyclopedia. External links don't add anything directly to our articles. See wikipedia:external links. -Willmcw 16:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, can you tell me why Reinier's site is being allowed to be listed again? What is its relevance to Sathya Sai Baba? 98% of my site has nothing to do with Reinier. Since his site has nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba, but is specifically his attacks against me, why it it being allowed on this site? If this link is allowed, I will have no choice but to post my rebuttal page at: vishvarupa.com Funny how Andries has deleted several links due to "relevance", but includes this one that is totally irrelevant.

SSS108 20:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I think. I think we should remove all of the links except for one official link to http://www.sathyasai.org/. All of this squabbing over weblinks is counterproductive. The article is too long already. The links section is much too long and adds nothing to the article. Unless folks can give me a persuasive reason to keep them, I'm cutting out the whole list. -Willmcw 21:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, if you simply focused on relevant links, we would not have this problem. Funny how you allow Andries to post irrelevant links. Reinier's page is about me. Not Sathya Sai Baba. 98% of my site has nothing to do with Reinier. It is not a Reinier site. My site is about Sathya Sai Baba and the ongoing public debate. If you were truly impartial, you would cut out irrelevant links. I can only wonder why you would rather cut out all links instead of cut out ones that are not pertinent to this article. If you cut out all links, the focus would shift to content. And then there would be wars about justifying allegations and trying to back them up or reference them.

Remove Reiniers link or my rebuttal link is going up.

SSS108 21:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Any material that is needed to provide a comprehensive picture of Sathya Sai Baba should be in this article or another one on Wikipedia. Rebuttals and counter-rebuttals are of interest only to highly-engaged partisans. As I said before, I am inclined to remove all of the links, as they seem to only cause discord and linkspam. They are all available through Google searchs. -Willmcw 21:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

I added my rebuttal link. If you allow Reiniers, then mine should be allowed as well. Fair is fair. You should tell Andries that posting rebuttals and counter rebuttals is of interest to "highly-egaged partisans". He is the one who started it. I'm still amazed how you refuse to remove his irrelevant link and correct him. Kind of makes one wonder.

SSS108 04:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I see what is going on here. You remove the links, but you allow other links to Brian Steels site and the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site by trying to put them under "books" and other such categories. Once again showing the clear bias for Anti-Sai Sites that governs this site. This just confirmed it.

SSS108 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all of the links at the end. No information is lost, this is the same article we had yesterday. Now please stop complaining. -Willmcw 05:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, that does not solve the problem. If you allow Anti-Sai links, and allow Anti-Sai references, you should allow my site that addresses these Anti-Sai references. After all, I am entitled to post my link (I read the wikipedia link policy and it is applicable). This article LINKS TO Anti-Sai Sites (saiguru.net, hetnet.nl/~exbaba and brian steel's site) and discusses criminal allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Since these serious allegations are not countered, I am entitled to provide a link that responds to these allegations. The only question is: Where does my link go now?

SSS108 06:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all of the links from the bottom of the article. If there are any that I missed please give me the exact place in the article so I can find them. If you have something to add to this article, please write some text, not a weblink. You are not entitled to a link, no one is "entitled" to a link. Your actual contributions to this encyclopedia are welcome. Please read Wikipedia:five pillars and wikipedia:external links.

---

"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is."

WHERE is the link dedicated to the point of view that discusses the problems with criminal allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba by Anti-SSB Activists? My link is 100% relevant to the various points of views discussed in this article.

Now Willmcw, where is my link going to be placed?

SSS108 06:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted becasue the editors couldn't agreee. If you would like to add content to the article please feel free. -Willmcw 16:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I removed this text because it does not add anything tot he article, it's just a link.

• *Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba Examined: by Gerald Joe Moreno An in-depth site that discusses various allegations and viewpoints made against the Indian Guru, Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Extensive references and articles that expose disturbing tactics and the online activity of those who openly criticize the Guru.

If you would like to add a discussion of the various allegations then we can work with that. But no more links please. -Willmcw 17:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw. Okay. So I am allowed to write a section under a sub-category of "Alternative Viewpoints" with no links? I would like to get this clear before I make my contribution so that there will no disagreements later.

There is another link that needs to be changed. Under "Media and Governments", "Ref 1" is a link to the SaiGuru.net site: 1. This link should be directed to original article located HERE

Thanks.

SSS108 17:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Add the content that you want and then we can discuss it, or post it here in case you want to discuss it first. Please make sure that you are familiar with our key policies, wikipedia:five pillars. Please note that the topic of this article is Sathya Sai Baba, so material that is not related to that topic is likely to be removed. (PS, I'll change the link). -Willmcw 18:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, here is my article. Of course, the references will be left out, but I am adding them here for others to independently verify. Many of the alternative viewpoints I make, are in response to the critical viewpoints made against SSB on this main article. So if their points are relevant and can be included, I don't see why mine can't. Please leave my syntax in tact. Thanks.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

Serious allegations of sexual abuse, fraud and murder have surfaced against Sathya Sai Baba, on the internet, through various sites from skeptics and former devotees.

Contradictory testimonies, withheld information about alleged victims & ex-devotees and embellished theories about the June 6th 1993 police shootings are just a few of the main points of contention regarding the Sathya Sai Baba debate.

Although there is much debate regarding materializations, even former devotees continue to attest to Sathya Sai Baba's paranormal powers, including Robert Priddy who believes that Sai Baba has "extraordinary and positive powers", can materialize "apports" and is "extremely psychically sensitive" to his devotees.

ref 1 "extremely psychically sensitive"

ref 2 "extraordinary and positive powers"

ref 3 "apports"

Various arguments have been made against Sathya Sai Baba's translated discourses. It is argued, on one hand, that the discoursees are so heavily edited, they do not represent the Guru's actual words. On the other hand, however, when it comes to inconsistencies or factual errors, these same translations are cited as accurate and literal references to Sathya Sai Baba's fallibility.

In the past 5 years, since these allegations have been made public, there have been no new reports of alleged sexual abuse, court cases or complaints (from alleged victims), fraud, murder, or anything else for that matter, filed against Sathya Sai Baba in an Indian Court of Law. Despite former devotees offering "world class legal resources" to alleged victims, not even one victim has come forward (in 5 years) to utilize these resources. This lends credence to the idea that the "amassed evidence", against Sathya Sai Baba, is either lacking or has being misrepresented.

ref 4 "world class legal resources"

SSS108 22:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this. I notice you say, "here is my article." Please read the article that we already have. It already includes most of the things you have written. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is not true that there have been no new cases in the last 5 years. Mark Roche (name?) who appeared in the BBC documentary Secret Swami was new and even I testify of new cases, among others Edwin R. Andries 22:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

And also please do not insert the most extraordinary claims that some critical former followers make and then start to refute these extraordinary claims. This is a dishonest way of treating a subject that should not be used in Wikipedia. Andries 22:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Mark Roche's alleged abuse occurred many, many years ago. It did not happen in 2004. Get it right already, Andries. And Mark Roche has NEVER filed any court case against Sathya Sai Baba either. I said that no one has filed a court case for alleged sexual abuse in the last 5 years, despite be given the promise of "world class legal services". Andries, if you do not want people to refute the claims made on this article (and of course you don't) then you should remove them ;-)

Willmcw. Tell me where my points of contention have already included in this article? Perhaps the first paragraph, but what about the rest?

SSS108

If you REALLY want to be honest, you should NOT be including any criminal allegations that have NOT been vetted through a COURT of LAW. Otherwise, Willmcw is contradicting his statement that he dsoes NOT make legal judgements. His partisan actions on this board speak much to the contrary. There is absolutely NO proof that there are ANY affidavits. I have been asking for proof for THREE years now and have gotten nothing but the run around. I have seen absolutely NO proof Hari Sampath EVER had a supreme court case. It is NOT listed on the supreme court site of India and I can find NOT one CREDIBLE witness who has seen the paperwork. Michelle Goldberg NEVER saw any paperwork, she took the "word" of another journalist and can't even remember his name! I turned info over to Illinois police in Jan or Feb of 2003 that Hari Sampath was wanted in India. Shortly after that he disappeared from sight and his site went down. Considering that Hari Sampath was a main muckraker I think we are owed some proof as to his whereabouts.

Mark Roche claims he was sexually abused in 1976 at approx. 25 yo but remained a devotee until 1994. Suddenly, at the age of fifty-something, he appears out of "nowhere" for the documentary claiming he was molested almost thirty years ago. The statute of linmitations for sex crimes in the U.S. is 7 years. Nothing like holding someone hostage for years, eh Will? Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? I wonder if you would treat the Pope or Jesus the same way.

Maybe we should just put "by Andries Dagneaux" under the title to the article. Then everyone will at least know who wrote it. BTW, I have the name and address to the owner of Wikipedia. I'm sure you can connect the dots as to how it will be used.

Lisa De Witt

I removed one paragraph by anon because it was redundant info: it has already been discussed in the article. Andries 07:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Lisa De Witt said, I wonder if you would treat the Pope or Jesus the same way.

You'd be surprised. See also Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal or Mother Theresa for examples of allegations against other religious leaders. -Willmcw 08:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Baloney, you aren't even the moderator there and I'm talking about YOU and your blatantly obvious bias. And no one in the "mainstream media" has EVER brought up the possibilty that the Pope covered up the abuse of children in the Catholic church. It pays to be white. If you claim to be so "fair" why don't you give Joe control over editing for awhile instead of letting Andries control all the Sai Baba articles? Your agenda is pretty obvious. Did they teach you this kind of discrimination at Carnegie-Mellon? Between Joe and I we have tried to make NUMEROUS additions to this site and all we've gotten is hogwash. And we are NOT the only ones who have complained. You're not even coming close to being objective. I guess this is the only "job" Andries can get...lol. He's so obsessed with trying to act like a cult expert he can't even tell the truth anymore. He's become what he abhores most. A cult-like automaton who refuses to see the truth for what it is and even lies now to cover up for his buddies. Alaya Rahm and two other accusers claimed to anti-Sais that Baba's penis "morphed" into a vagina. Yet the anti-Sais claim Sai Baba is a fraud! That's some "sound" reasoning from the "great brains" in the anti-Sai crowd (including the atheists like Premanand)! Not hard to see why SO MANY OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE documented PSYCHIATRIC HISTORIES. Tal Brooke scrubbed (in later additions) the part written in his 1976 addition of Lord of the Air about the fact that he was seeing a psychiatrist in 1964 when he dropped out of his first year of college. He also failed to inform the audience that his father was the Director of Media Content for the U.S. Information Agency (aka Propaganda Minister for CIA), appointed by Edward R. Murrow in 1961 when racism was rampant and covert activites were being used to smear and neutralize blacks who were deemed to be a threat to the white man's superiority. Not much has changed since then except the packaging. And in case you are wondering, I am a white Aryan of German descent so NO I am not colored. I am an honest person who sees discrimination for what it is and will NOT tolerate it in ANY form. If EVER there was a case that STUNK of discrimination, this is IT. You won't get away with it. I know the power of truth and I WILL use it.

Lisa De Witt

Your implied threats are not welcome. I just looked at the history and I don't see any contributions from user:SSS108 or user:Freelanceresearch. I don't know what IPs you folks have used so I can't tell what your contributions have been. I'm only familiar with the attempts to add your websites. Joe says that he added, via an IP, the text below. So far neither he nor you have shown any willingness to resolve the problem. Wikipedia is a collaboration. Please don't complain about it, make it better. -Willmcw 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

New text

• 1. There are also critics who allege that he has sexual relations with young men and boys among his followers, and has done so for more than forty years. No Indian court of law has accepted any case on sexual abuse by Baba. Nor have any of the alleged victims filed charges in the appropriate district. This may be due to the perceived status of the Baba as being too powerful, with supporters throughout the High Courts and the judiciary in India. Besides there is a testimony by Jens Senthi who claimed to have been sexually abused by the Baba but who was treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police. Supporters of Baba say the allegations are baseless rumors created with the malicious intention of sabotaging the guru's work. (this is text which was already there)

• 2. Those skeptical of the claims made by ex-devotees, critics and alleged victims of Sathya Sai Baba, continually ask that the "weighty evidence", "amassed proof" and "scores to hundreds of affidavits" be made public or taken to a Court of Law in India. To date, not even one alleged victim has, first-hand, filed either a complaint or a court case against the Guru in India. Despite former devotees offering "world class legal resources" to alleged victims, not even one victim has come forward to utilize these resources. This lends credence to the idea that the "amassed evidence", against Sathya Sai Baba, is either lacking or has being willfully misrepresented. (this is text that was added to a different place)

Can we consolidate these two? -Willmcw 10:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

Willmcw, I already know that since you and Andries are maintaining soviet-style control over this site, nothing I say is going to meet the strict standards of YOUR points of view. My point of view will never get due justice. That is 100% obvious. Which is okay, I have it all screen captured and am currently making a page about it, along with this conversation. I would like to make one more point. This page does not belong to you, nor does it belong to Andries. It is supposed to belong to the general public. I do not have to ask your permission to edit it. I only have done so because I wanted to make my submission in a more appropriate way. If this was a Christian Site, one can be certain that Anti-Christians would never be allowed to modify it. The Anti-Sai point of view, that is being propagated on this page, does NOT reflect the majority opinion regarding Sai Baba. It reflects an extreme minority.

The Anti-Sai allegations are made despite NO court cases EVER being filed, in a court of law, in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized FREE, "world class legal resources". Not even ONE single affidavit has ever been made public. The petition signatures have NEVER been independently verified. Numerous references are made to anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. Anti-Sai's have slandered Sathya Sai Baba in the most vile way, yet whenever anyone questions them, they are "all of a sudden" beyond reproach. It is of little wonder that no one has EVEN TRIED to file a court case, first-hand, against Sathya Sai Baba, in India. All of this points to a Cultish, Secretive, Hate-Group, that tries to mislead the general public with propaganda. This site is proof. No documents. No affidits. No court cases. No first-hand complaints filed in India. No independent agencies verifying their alleged data. No nothing!

The fact that this page is biased is clearly shown when Andries, who is the webmaster and contact for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, is being allowed to add/delete/edit as HE chooses with impunity. And you, Willmcw, allow this! So you two can continue to do as you choose. This is my last post on this site. But this issue is far from over. Which will me made known, to all, very soon.

SSS108 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the soviets used a totally different style to control their wikis. ;) What's the problem? You've made only one attempt to add useful text to the article, and I brought it to the talk page because it overlaps existing text. Once we resolve the overlaps then we'll have text that includes the points you think should be raised. Certainly this is not a Christian site, nor a Sathya Sai site either. We're devoted to portraying all significant points of view in a neutral manner. Yes, that includes the pro- and anti- sides. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

SSS108/Joe, as Willmcw wrote, wikipedia depends on compromise and you need time to get it included what you want. I really tried my best to make the SSB articles in Wikipedia to be balanced and tried to incorporate the view points and rebuttals of followers. If had I wanted to make Wikipedia an expose website then I could have listed e.g. all the many documented contradictions in SSB's teachings. Well, may be I will do it anyway. Andries 06:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Baloney, you deleted Joe's WHOLE submission as soon as he put it up so stop lying. We have the screen capture of your deletion and comment for the whole world to see. You didn't even TRY to discuss it with him and you KNOW it. You've attacked ANYONE who comes in here who disagrees with you. You patronized me with your garbage about being "sincere but brainwashed". The only ones who are brainwashed are you and your cadre of fools who can't stop contradicting yourselves about Sai Baba's powers. You've become a power-hungry, obsessive control-freak who needs to grow up and get a life. You're controlling several Sai Baba articles on this site like you own them. I know how to take care of the situation and I will.

The reason you don't see any contributions is because Andries deleted them all last year when I was here, Will. I know what I wrote and it was ALL deleted last year by Andries. I have a copy of the page with MY contributions to prove it. In addition, it was the exact same story where Andries does NOT discuss, he just deletes.

Lisa De Witt

Please, everybody, refrain from making negative personal remarks. I know that passions are high but let's remember that this is an encyclopedia project. We should focus on the text, not each other. If information is wrong then say, "this information is wrong". Don't say, "you're a brainwashed liar" or "you're delusional", or any other comment on the other editors.

LDW - The way that the system works here is that every edit is logged into the history (see here). When I say "I can't see your edits" what I mean is that I'm not sure which edits in the history list are yours. However we can't change the past (or the edit history). I suggest that we move forward by identifying specific problems and fixing them. We started to work on merging two paragraphs about the lack of criminal charges, etc. Can we continue? -Willmcw 10:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Links

Why have the links (other than to the official Sai Baba site) been removed from the page? There should be a good mix of pro- (both official and unofficial), anti- and (if there are any) neutral, links. M Alan Kazlev 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There developed a situation where webmasters were demanding, tit for tat, links to rebuttals of each others websites. The previous list had grown to over 45 links. In general, Wikipedia articles should contain the beasic compreheisive information about their subject. I think this one does. If you'd like to review the discussion of the links, start at the top of the page..... -Willmcw 18:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, right. Yes, this is very off-putting

I can see you had no choice but to remove all the links, because otherwise this ugliness and acrinomy would drag on and on (as i have witnessed it in my (admnittdely rather superficial) investigations of the pro- vs anti-SSB factions

However it is a shame that there isn't a link to Joe's site (if one were including some pro- and anti- links) because I have found the material on his website to be very interesting, even if i take issue with certain details of content and approach M Alan Kazlev 02:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

btw Willmcw, I've been informed that Andries is the "news, webmaster and contact" for the largest Anti-Sai Baba Site on the internet, hetnet.nl/~exbaba If this is true, letting him determine or influence policy and content on a page on Sai Baba is like letting a creationist determine how a wiki page on Darwinism should read! I checked the history of the article, and have found repeated entries by Andries. This means that the neutrality of this article is seriously in doubt. I'm sure that Andries is an excellent Wikipedian in all other respects, but here we have a very clear POV conflict (i.e. can one write from an NPOV perspective about something that one feels so strongly, passionately, and onesidely a POV? ) Compare the page on Sai Baba with the wiki page on the equally controversial guru Da Free John which is much more positive towards him M Alan Kazlev 02:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Alan, I really tried to do my best not to make this not into an expose article and to present all sides of the story. Here is my personal story if you are interested. Andries 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no standard for how positive an article is supposed to be, so long as it is NPOV. Andries does not determine policy, he's an editor like everyone else here. Just because he has edited the article does not mean that he has made biased entries. Thousands of editors with their various biases make NPOV edits every day. If you have specific issues with specific language, let's addres it. But discussion of editors do not belong on article talk pages. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

note, the following was written before i read your next paragraph Willmcw. But rather than go back and re-edit what i originally wrote, i'll just post it as is:

actually anything that might indicate bias should surely belong on the article talk pages!!!

Don't mistake me for some naive devotee. I have been investigating the whole pro- and ex- devottee isssue. And while Andries does make some powerful claims in his personal account that he gives the link for (and do i respect and honour him for telling his story, and see no reason to believe he would be lying or inventing the whole thing), I have also investigated some of the claims that Joe makes on his website, and while there is too much there for any one person to investigate (at leats too much for me to investigate), in at least some instances (quite disturbing ones) where i have followed up the links, these check out too. Now, this is not the place to discuss the details of pro- and anti- SSB factions and arguments, but clearly the situation is not as simple as either the pro- or anti- crowd make it out to be (and i win no friends from either camp by saying this). Anyway, this is why i was dissapointed that the link to Joe's site was removed; despite its somewhat obsessive quality, his research does raise some very interesting questions.

re the Sai Baba article, it has been many years since i have been involved in the movement, and so i do not feel qualified to comment on any of the edits. What i am qualified to comment on is the Sai Baba flamewar. Despite sincerity on both sides, there is also a lot of bias and each side is trying to push their own agenda, each side marshells extremely persuasive arguments, each claims (perhaps justly) to be very restrained in the face of constant attacks and provocation by the other. Willmcw what you have seen on this talk page is just a small taste of this whole ugly affair, played out in yahoo groups and elsewhere

I'm certainly not saying Andries can't or shouldn't make edits here, but only suggesting that if Andries is making more edits than, say, Joe (which would plausibly be the case because Joe doesnt even have a wiki account) then, even with the very best of intentions, the entry will still unfortunately (and through no-one's deliberate fault) aquire a certain bias. Were the position re SSB clear cut, there would be no problem. But confirmation of even a few of Joe's claims that i followed up shows that things are not quite so simple!

Like i said, compare the Sai Baba entry with the one on Da Free John; Da has likewise been accused (and no doubt (imho) been guilty of) sexual and emotional abuse of his devotees. Da, like Sai, is a strangely powerful and charismatic individual, with a lot of spiritual experiences associated with him. The links section of the Da essay gives a very good balance of pro and anti Da links (despite complaints by pro-Daists to have the anti- links removed). This is why, as i said, i would like to have seen a small selection (say half a dozen) of links here, giving both sides of the argument M Alan Kazlev 07:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

PS, I'm not necessarily endorsing Andries' work. I'm just saying let's focus on the work, not the editor.

sure, sorry if i was giving the impression i was attacking or criticising Andries, that is not and was not my intention!

As far as the work goes: this article does have a significant proportion devoted to negative allegations. But I also see that there is an entire category devoted to aspects of Sathya Sai Baba. I think that in balancing this article we should be aware that there are many additional articles focusing just on the "positive" aspects (and one to the "negative") of Sathya Sai Baba. Anyway, there's always room for improvement. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

hmm, Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba seems to be the place where those links can go. I might go back to the history and copy the deleted links from this page to over there. Thanks for pointing it out! :-) And i agree with you also that there should be a better balance of positivce and negative in the main Sai Baba article (not that there should be no negative, only that there should be a balance) M Alan Kazlev 07:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with Alan on this. The truth should be told about the allegations (because people are going to read about them if they are on the net anyway) but any accusations should also be addressed with rebuttal as would happen in a court room. For example, people should be informed that Premanand is an atheist and that David Bailey wrote a positive book on Sai Baba titled Journey to Love which was published in 1998 and he was giving positive public speeches about Sai Baba until at least 1998. Also, Bailey and Premanand's accusations are all second-hand except for their claim of witnessing sleight of hand, so people on this board may not want to include them at all unless they are FIRST-HAND accounts.user: Freelanceresearch

Lisa De Witt (I tried my user sig so we'll see if it works)

Add the material if you think it is important. Please summarize it an NPOV manner and have verifiable sources. However the extensive details should go in Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba, which is where all of that stuff is dealt with at length. Regarding first hand/second hand, that is not an issue. Wikipedia:reliable sources says we should try to get first hand sources (though not by practicing original research), but we settle for second, third, tenth hand reports if they come from a reliable source. (PS, thanks for getting an account. You can now sign by typing four tildes ~~~~. That will automatically add name and date.) Cheers, -Willmcw 06:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the records here show I had an account as of June 23, 2004. I left because of Andries rudeness and dictatorial monopolization of the board. We'll see soon if it changes. Freelanceresearch 07:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Freelanceresearch, I reverted most of your edits because they were

1. ad hominem attack on the critics of SSB
2. too detailed for this article e.g. SSB warning devotees against Idi Amin, besides they were unsourced.

Andries 08:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Just stop lying Andries. MOST of the info I put in the article was FACTUAL background info about Hari Sampath and the FACT I turned info over to police regarding a "testimonial" he was WANTED in India. After that the alleged con artist disappeared and his site went down and ALL of you have remained totally MUM on his whereabouts. I also added info about Tal Brooke's father being a part of the US propaganda apparatus which is documented not only on the Spanish version of saiguru.net but ALSO the archives of the Kennedy Library with a link to it on the US State Dept. website. ALL of it was sourced, con artist. NONE of it is ad hominem you lying fool. Now grow up and act like a man for once. You know ALL this info and YOU refuse to let anyone else have their say. You also deleted Joe's info because you are a con artist on a mission. And now I see Reinier removed Joe's link to his site. When does your hate group's cult-like behavior END bozo? If I edit something you keep your slimey hands OFF of it. Keep up your slimey behavior and a report WILL go to the owner of Wikipedia about your hate group's censorship (the list of abuses is growing LONGER), capische? I'm NOT putting up with it anymore. Go find someone else to bully, bully.Freelanceresearch 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Freelanceresearch, I do not understand how this background information , about some of the criticsof SSB (Hari Sampath & Tal Brooke) is relevant for this article, regardless whether it is factual or sourced. It does not seriously say something about their (lack of) reliability of their testimonies about SSB. That is why I classified them as ad hominem attacks. Andries 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no owner of Wikipedia but there are procedures for dispute resolution, among others wikipedia:request for comment Andries 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're really a work of art Andries, the supposed "credibility" of YOUR sources has EVERYTHING to do with this article. And I AM the FIRSTHAND source for the information bozo or are you too dumb to get it? In short, YOUR sources lack credibility. Can you understand that, Andries? I sent a report to the Illinos police about Hari and he dissappeared and now YOU are covering up for him and I am a first hand source of THOSE facts. Can you understand that Andries? The public has a RIGHT to know what happened to your supposedly "credible" source. Can you understand that, Andries?

And once again you LIE. there IS an owner of Wikipedia and his name is JIM and I have his address Andries. I'm a researcher, Andries. And there WILL be a complaint filed about your fascist tactics on this site, Andries. Like I said, keep your slimey hands OFF my editing. In fact please don't talk to me anymore because I don't want to hear anymore of your sorry lies, ok Andries? The only way to deal with emotional abusers like you is to cut you off. And THAT is what I am doing. Freelanceresearch 21:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks, such as "Bozo" or "you are too dumb", will not be tolerated. -Willmcw 22:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Will - while your effort at curtailing personal attacks here is commendable, I was recently informed by an administrator that "Discussing editor's behavior should be done on a user talk page, not in an article." This same administrator also labelled an attempt of this sort to curtail another editor's personal attacks as "provocation." While I cannot vouch for whether he made these suggestions in accordance with Wikipedia policy or not, I thought you should at least be aware of them in light of your statement above. Thanks - Rangerdude 23:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? If you want to inject yourself into this matter then go right ahead. We need more editors working on this article. -Willmcw 23:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

Please do not add forums to the external links, especially not when they deal with Shirdi Sai Baba or are otherwise only remotely related to Sathya Sai Baba. I am trying to cut down the nr. of external links without offending people to make it following Wikipedia's policy. Please help. Thanks. Andries 15:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Report:

Reinier Van Der Sandt Deletions & Vandalism Update: August 4th 2005: It was decided (by who knows whom) to put the external links back up on the main Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba, on July 28th 2005. My site-link was included with these external links. On July 31st 2005, my site-link was removed by a person whose IP was 145.53.1.234. This IP happens to be Reinier Van Der Sandt's IP (he even admitted it was his IP). Click Here to verify that this IP is the exact same IP that belongs to Reinier Van Der Sandt. Click Here to view the Wikipedia record that shows that Reinier, using the IP 145.53.1.234, deleted my link. Click Here to view a screen capture. Don't expect Andries (aka Mr. Neutrality) to restore my link. He has not done so. Once again, this goes to show how Anti-Sai Activists operate on the premise of suppression in order further their one-way agenda of hate and disinformation against Sathya Sai Baba. Update: August 6th 2005: Yesterday, Alan Kazlev put my link back on the main article for Sathya Sai Baba and Reinier Van Der Sandt deleted it again. Click Here to see how Reinier, using the IP 145.53.1.234, deleted my site-link a second time. The link was restored by Alabamaboy. Let us see if Reinier will try to remove my site-link a third time. Update: August 8th 2005: Reinier Van Der Sandt (RVDS) is now changing the description to my site by trying to misrepresent it and is also trying to promote his Anti-Sai Site, hetnet.nl/~exbaba. Click Here see how RVDS changed the description to my site and called me a "Sai Baba Devotee devotee" (although I have stated several times I am not a devotee). Click Here to see how RVDS changed the description to my site again, saying "A website with many failures". Click Here to see how RVDS changed the description to his Anti-Sai Site and said "Most important and extensive website that contains important studies and videos of allleged materializations". As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words". This type of Anti-Sai activity speaks volumes about Anti-SSB Activists and their inability to speak or act honestly. Freelanceresearch 21:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---

addendum on Wikipedia article by Brian Steel

Complaint by user:Culver about other editors

• Summary
  • "Controlling" articles by User:Andries
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Maneuvering against Wikipedia's own guidelines
  • Removal of external links

moved to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Culver's complaint -Willmcw 23:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

Culver, thanks for getting a username. It makes communication much easier. Now then, this is not the place to file a complaint. The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy describes the procedure to follow. Continued complaints to this page are very likely to result in all of the links being deleted again. -Willmcw 07:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Willmcw, as YOU well know is that YOU are allowing Andries et al to engage in "edit wars" while YOU simply turn the other cheek. After being FULLY informed as to what is going on, you continue to aid and abet this "extremist" behavior. You have not done ONE thing to rein these people in. In fact, you have egged them on so it is no wonder that they continue to censor others while you feign ignorance. Reminds me of how the Nazis lured their victims into the gas chambers all the while acting so polite, smiling and telling them everything would be fine as they coaxed them to their deaths. Please stop acting as if all of us are so naive so as not to see the dynamics of what is taking place. WE have seen the NUMEROUS complaints on this talk page. Need I post them all for a reality check? Freelanceresearch 04:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this user:Culver/Joe Moreno? Who are "WE"? Last time I intervened in this article I deleted all links, without bias or favor. Please do not compare me to death camp Nazis, it does not help your case. Yes, I have seen numerous complaints, by an unknown assortment of people, who may all be the same person for all I know. The complaints mostly see to concern either the links section or my behavior. As such, none of those remarks has really helped this article at all. Yes, I have been "turning the other cheek", but if these personal attacks continue it will be time for me to file a complaint. -Willmcw 04:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Stop trying to censor me Willmcw. I will use whatever analogy IS appropriate and the similarity to Nazism is VERY appropriate here. Yes, you continue to turn the other cheek when it comes to letting Andries (who deletes peoples submissions with total disregard) and his cadre of abusers run roughshod over anyone else who wants to have a say in this article. The ONLY ones you have directed your attacks at (and I do call them attacks since they are highly biased and unfair and do absolutely nothing to resolve the real issue here) are the ones who have been abused by Andries!!! Like I said, you continue to attack me (who has not touched the article since I know what will happen) and others while you have done NOTHING to set boundaries so other editors who disagree with Andries can at least have their say. There ARE ways to deal with the issue but you continue to give us the royal runaround with your sweet talking duplicity. If you can't handle the job, PLEASE, by all means turn it over to someone else. Freelanceresearch 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"similarity to Nazism is VERY appropriate here."

No it is not. The Nazis were despicable criminals who killed millions of humans. Whatever Willcmw does with his keyboard is uncomparable to that. You unmasked yourself as an unscrupulous demagogue when you used that comparison. I'll support Willmcv's complaint when it comes, because you are in desperate need of a slap on the fingers. --Hob Gadling 10:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

Culver, I fully recognized when I started editing Wikipedia that it is not exbaba.com or any other anti-SSB website and I have followed the policies to my best abilities. I think you should try to discuss contents of this article, not the person (me). I wil remove the neutrality warning unless you state what is wrong with the contents. And I find your argument that anonymous attacks on me are okay because some of the attacks on SSB are anyomous too an inappropriate comparison. First of all, there are several people who complained about sexual abuse by SSB using their real names (incl. me) and there is no person who complained about me using their real name. Secondly, I am, unlike SSB, hardly a public person and I never claimed to be pure, desireless and acquired followers on this basis of these claims. Andries 08:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I just came across this dispute, and I see parallels with your editing activities on other articles. I must say that in reading this page, I begin to understand your motivations much better, and it ain't pretty. It seems that your only interest is to validate your own apostasy, and you do not care much about how to accomplish that. I have warned you many times about the mistake you are making by using Wikipedia to resolve a deep personal problem like the one you have stated in numerous ocassions. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, Andries! Whatever these articles say or not say it will not change anything! I am also surprised and disappointed at Willmcw's attitude against anons as presented in this page. I would expect a much higher level of restrain, and a more amicable, community-building attitude from an Admin than that. --ZappaZ 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Zappaz, stop making comments on me here as a person, but instead write what is wrong with the article. Andries 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe Moreno, though previously unregistered, is far from an "anon". Tell me what you are specifically referring to. I have exhibited restraint in the face of some extreme behavior. If you can do a better job, please, become involved. Sniping from the sidelines is fun, but doesn't help. Thanks, -Willmcw 15:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Will, I read this page in its entirity and you come across not very nicely, I must say. Maybe is time to ask another editor to help with this article, and restrain Andries a bit. I do not have the time, neither the inclination to submit myself to that tedious proposition. --ZappaZ 15:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comments by users

Please do not delete comments by users. You are welcome to delete (and mark) any personal attacks only as per WP policy. --ZappaZ 17:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That was not a comment. Let's stick to discussing the article, not the editors. -Willmcw 22:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The complaints about the inability of this editor to participate are relevant to this conversation. --ZappaZ 23:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just move it to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Complaints and add a summary of these here, but do not delete. --ZappaZ 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Culver's complaint. Now please tell me exactly what you think I should have said differently in this matter, since you are in the mood to deal with complaints. Thakns, -Willmcw 23:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

As I have already said it, it may be time for you to step back and invite other editors to assist with this dispute. Sometimes that is the best strategy. --ZappaZ 02:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The following comment by Brian Steel on his website that came as a surprise and is, I believe, relevant for the comments that you make on Willmcw's behavior "As the main contributors to the above Wikipedia article spend their valuable time adjudicating complaints and responding firmly and courteously to aggressive and sometimes intemperate critics, they continue to strive for balanced coverage of this controversial topic; pleasing everyone is not easy. (See, for example, the Discussion section in that article.)" Andries 11:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Good comment Andries, but you need to be authentic in your thoughts, words and deeds. Not just that there should be unity in these three too...because a couple of months back, this was not the attitude that you used to follow in this page. But becuase as there are increasing number of complaints, you are being polite...did i guess correctly? Hope i am wrong, Andries...

Some quick comments on the additions made by SS108/Gerald Joe Moreno at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Culver's_complaint. I will later to address Moreno's comments in more detail.

1. I was not aware of the additional context of Schulman's reporting of terror of SSB. I had not read Schulman's book and copied the quote from Sanjay Dadlani's ararticle. I will add the context. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
2. I think a boy/man <18 years is still a boy. I thought that Sam Young/Alaya was 15 years old, though I am not sureAndries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
3. The article already states that there is no complaints in India. So what do you want add? No need for repititions. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
4. The article states nowhere that t he school record is a reliable source for the birth date and year of SSB. It only states that the school record is enough reason to doubt the official information about the date 23 Nov. 1926 that may not be correct, especially taking into consideration that the date of 23 Nov. suits SSB very well with regards to the Aurobindo date. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No more info from personal websites, no more unattributed opinions

Because of Gerald Joe Moreno's insistence of adding his version of the controversy in this article, I am afraid that I have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines very strictly. I will remove all information from personal website, (like the ones by Priddy and Steel) and only from notable books, media articles and academic sources. The only recent detailed academic source are the articles by Alexandra Nagel, who had published a 1994 article in Dutch in an academic magazine and later an unofficial Dutch article for the university of Amsterdam. An English updated version of her article is A guru accused. I do not think that the strict adherence to Wikipedia's policy will improve the article but I feel that there is no other fair way to keep Gerald Joe Moreno's endless rationalizations and intellectual dishonesty out of this article, though I have to admit that he occasionally makes a good point. If Moreno succeeds in getting his website cited as a reliable source in a notable media article or academic article then, of course, Moreno's view can be added to this article, as per the Wikipedia policy. I will also attribute all opinions and if I can't will remove them as per Wikipedia policy. Andries 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:Excellent, Andries. I will proceed and delete all references to ex-premie.org, the personal website of John Brauns. --ZappaZ 05:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Culver's_complaint A response to Andries: SSS108 00:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

HIS?

anyone know what the significance of HIS is in the opening section? it is inserted without explanation: 'today there are HIS organsiations in many countries'.. Tiksustoo 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this, but His followers generally write about Him with a capital in correspondence with His perceived divinity. But I do not think that this appropriate here. This may be interesting to mention in the article. (this is so normal for me, as an ex-follower that I had forgotten to mention it). Andries

Removed doubtful statement from the intro

I removed the doubtful statement from the intro that all is free of charge. This is claimed but disputed and hence not a fact. I also inserted the undisputed notable fact that high ranking policians visit his ashram. Unfortunately there are very few undisputable notable facts about SSB. Andries 18:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

SSB in popular culture: unattributed opinion and doubtful statement

• "It is believed by some that Sathya Sai Baba is the guru Alanis Morissette refers to in the song Baba on her second album Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie" There are several religious figures and gurus called Baba. Who believes this? This has to be attributed. Andries 22:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• "Sathya Sai Baba is the creator of Nag Champa, which is allegedly the world's most popular incense." Where is the reference for this? Yes, his name is depicted on Nag Champa, but is he really the creator? Andries 22:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A Section For Devotees And Proponents

I have read "Culver's Complaint" and I feel that there should be a new section that includes a "Devotees And Proponents" section. I will be introducing this section shortly, taken from Moreno's recommendations. I am surprised this viewpoint has not been included already, despite a three month delay. I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope that there is a moderator who is fair and will not allow "Andries" to botch my efforts, as he has done with Moreno and others. I also see some serious problems with the article. Especially the reference to "money laundering". Where is the court information to support this claim? There is tremendous amounts of bias in the article. Devotees feel that Sai's teaching are meaningful and original. Conseqeuently, personal bias about Sai's teaching being "unoriginal" or "unremarkable" should be edited out. Thaumaturgic 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is better that the treatment of the allegations and the rebuttal by Gerald Joe Moreno is put into one section because there are many shades of grey, for example Jens Sethi did file a complaint in Germany after he was sexually abused by SSB and treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police, SSB was acquitted of breaking the Gold Control Act because, according to the judge, a materialiation is not a transfer of Gold, SSB's sexual abuse victim Hans de Kraker signed the internet petition to have SSB investigated by the law etc. Andries 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Andries, you need to keep your hands off of the Devotees and Proponents point of view. You are not a devotee and you should not be editing OUR point of view. There are "many shades of grey" regarding the Sai-Antagonist's claims made on this article. There are untruths about money laundering and "murders". There is no proof or court cases to back it up. I have been corresponding with Moreno and he tells me that Jens Sethi claimed he filed a complaint in Germany and also claimed he would make it public. He has not. Therefore, it is unverifiable. Although there are some signatures that can be verified on the petition, a majority of them cannot and have not been verified. Unless you can provide proof to the contrary, the statement I submitted is true. We are not talking about the Gold Control Act. Stay on topic. A majority of this article is against Sai and it should be moved to the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" section. The introductory page is just that. You have turned it into a propaganda page. I also believe that Moreno made a strong case about Sai-Antagonists misrepresenting the facts about Sathya Sai Baba. It doesn't matter if you agree with this or not. Sai devotees do believe it and it is OUR point of view. So stop messing with OUR point of view. Thaumaturgic 00:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as they stay within policy anyone is free to edit any part of wikipedia they chose.Geni 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Geni, that is what you say. Whenever someone tries to edit it, Andries reverts it or edits it himself. That is unfair. Andries is a vocal opponent and skeptic of Sathya Sai Baba. Why he is being allowed to determine the content on this article is a question people would like answered. Especially devotees. Thaumaturgic 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thaumaturguic only touches on the surface to the main problems with this article. There are other issues that need to be addressed (with numerous smaller ones):

1. The comment: "his teachings are unoriginal, often mere platitudes and unremarkable" is a personal statement expressing bias.
2. The comment: " his charity projects are exaggerated, and in part, a front for money-laundering and other personal gain of the coterie of the top of the organizations who know the Baba to be a cheater" is unproven. It should be removed.
3. The comment: "In 1993, four people who were armed with knives were killed after they had intruded in Sai Baba's bedroom" leaves out the fact that these four intruders viciously stabbed and killed SSB's 2 aides.
4. That the contradictions that Anti-Sai Activists point out, in SSB's discourses, is taken from the English translations and not from the original Telugu discourses.
5. The story of Jens Sethi leaves out the fact that the reason why he was treated so bad (allegedly) was because he was distributing Anti-Sai Material at Puttaparthi.
6. Redundant references to Basava Premanand and David Bailey.
7. Under "Media and Government" there is a bold-faced lie about Dr. Bhatia telling Mick Brown, in the Divine Downfall Interview, that an "underages student had been raped by Sai Baba". Dr. Bhatia NEVER mentioned this incident in the Divine Downfall Interview. Rather, this story was taken from The Findings and was written by an ANONYMOUS person who attributed the story to Dr. Bhatia. Reference
8. The Media Links are ALL Anti-Sai. Why isn't there even one link to positive Sathya Sai Baba media articles?

Why is such blatant disinformation allowed in this article? I know why. Thaumaturguic, you will find out very soon.

SSS108 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 1. now corrected and attributed and besides it is a well-known self-admitted fact that Baba teaches nothing new. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 2. attributed. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 3. Added Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 4. Brian Steel wrote only that they are enhanced by editors, not that the editors introduce contradictions. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 5. Corrected. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 6. "Redundant references to Basava Premanand and David Bailey." I do not understand this. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 7. Corrected, probably my mistake. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 8. This was never true. The New York Times article was quite positive. Andries 13:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sections and disputes

I would like to know why Andries keeps modifying the viewpoint for "Devotees and Proponents"? I am a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and the viewpoint I submitted reflects those of devotees and proponents. It does not reflect just Moreno's. Where is the moderator and why can't a "Devotees and Proponents" section be added to this page? Andries should not be allowed to interpret the viewpoints of others, furthering his own viewpoint. 172.174.138.117 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In general in Wikipedia opinions have to be attributed. Moreno is not the spokesperson for all followers. Some followers like Ram Das Awle, unlike Moreno, believe in the truth of the allegations. Follower Thjoborn Meyer and official in the Sathy Sai Organisation admitted that SSB oils the penises and scrotum of young men and boys. Clearly there are differences in the responses of several followers and Thaumaturgical should not edit this article as if Moreno were the only follower who responded to the accusations. In general it is wrong to have sections organized per point of view, instead of per subject. Andries 21:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, then I guess I will go back and attribute all your quotes to you. If you want the post to be attributed, then I will have Moreno write it up himself an I will submit his viewpoint. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the point of view expressed. I happen to agree with Moreno. So do other devotees I have corresonded with. You are not a devotee. So you cannot deem what devotees believe or do not believe. Thaumaturgic 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I know very well what devotees believe. After all I was a devotee myself for 9 years. And by whom is Gerald Joe Moreno cited? By the media? By academics? None of that all. As such he represents a minority point of view who deserves minority space as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries

I do not think that are any of my personal opinions in this article. Andries 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I will put this article on request for comments because of our dispute. Andries 22:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you say that Moreno speaks on behalf of followers then he mentions only a few of the 53 denials and rationalizations that I have heard. [1] Your assertion that Moreno speaks on behalf of devotees and proponents contradicts my experience. Andries 22:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the request for comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy Andries 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, but you are no longer a devotee. You are now against Sathya Sai Baba. Your viewpoint is biased when it comes to a favorable opinion about Sathya Sai Baba. A Christian turned Atheist is not going to talk favorably about Christianity. You are incapable of accepting our viewpoint because of your past experiences, whatever they were. Sai Antagonists represent a minority opinion about Sathya Sai Baba. He has millions of followers. What are your numbers? Where are your "academics" that entitle you to post here? Where are your media articles? This article is incredibly biased against Sathya Sai Baba. Sai Antagonist's point of view is inserted in every section to the article. When I want to submit our point of view, you start rewording it. Thaumaturgic 22:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)#

The ex-devotee viewpoint is both accepted by the media and by academics, e.g. by the BBC and Danish state television, salon.com etc. etc. Alexandra Nagel among other published critical articles in academic circles. I don't know any religious scholar or sociologist of religion who wrote that the allegations are untrue. Andries 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is true that I am incapable of accepting your viewpoint because I know it so well, probably be better than yourself. I know all the ins and outs. I could improve Moreno's rebuttal if I wanted. Andries 22:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You are incapable of accepting any point of you besides yours. Why don't you state the truth of the matter: that you are not interested in a neutral article, rather that your interest is to push your point of view under the masquerade of editorial honesty. Reading this article shows that you are not honest with the readers, with other editors and within the principles upon which this encyclopedia claims to be built. If you want to express your point of view, do it on your website where no one will bother you. But using this as a soap box to voice your negative opinions on this subject is plainly dishonest.

Joshua Kermogh

External links

The "external links" section is ridiculous. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Does any contributor volunteer pruning this down? Otherwise I'll try a solution by axe. --Pjacobi 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It got so bad I removed them all a few months ago, but they've grown back. -Willmcw 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should be a limit of five links per viewpoint. Five links directly for Sathya Sai Baba and five links for the contra & pro arguments. The other links should go under the relevant sections on "allegations against sathya sai baba". There should also be a limit on "media articles". We need to establish bounds because I am going to post favorable media articles about Sathya Sai Baba. If Sai Antagonists are allowed to post 10, 15, 20 negative media articles, I will find 10, 15, 20 positive media articles in return. This page is totally imbalanced and unfair. It's time for better moderation. Thaumaturgic 03:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

okay let's make 5 pro SSB links, 5 anti-SSB links, three other links, and ten media articles in total. Andries 22:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone should please self-moderate. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you are trying to argue your case from authority. That does not make you right. The Ptolemaic concept of the universe was accepted by even the brightest of scholars and philosophers. That did not make Claudius Ptolomy right. The BBC and Salon.com do not accept your viewpoint. They simply published a documentary and an article. Can you provide me with a link to the BBC or Salon.com's official stance on Sathya Sai Baba? You are trying to mislead people about the BBC and Salon.com. Why? There should five links relevant to Sathya Sai Baba and five links each to favorable & unfavorable viewpoints. I see what you are trying to do Andries. It won't work. Thaumaturgic 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we give majority point of views majority space. Salon.com and the BBC favorably and extensively cited critics and ex-followers, so this is a strong indication that they agree with the ex-follower point of view. Andries 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, where is the official statement, from any of these sites, that states explicity what you are saying? Substantiate your claim. Drawing inferences is not factual. Thaumaturgic 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers. Magazines and TV stations rarely have official opinions. Andries 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, earlier, you said, "The ex-devotee viewpoint is both accepted by the media and by academics, e.g. by the BBC and Danish state television, salon.com etc. etc". You are now changing your tune. Now, you are saying that people from these places are "sympathetic" with your viewpoint. You clearly tried to mislead people by saying the BBC and Salon.com accepted your viewpoints. Those organizations do not accept your viewpoints and have never released any statements regarding their official position on Sathya Sai Baba. If you had not been corrected, you would continue to mislead others with your careless over generalizations. Thaumaturgic 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim to be Mr. Accuracy. Yes, I made mistakes in this article and other articles in Wikipedia, especially when I rely too much on my memory. But I do continue to hold the view that the BBC, Danish Radio, and Salon.com wrote articles or showed documentaries that could in fact have been made by ex-devotees. Andries 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is so one sided (no surprise here as it has been edited by Andries that is a well known POV pusher against gurus of any denomination), that short of rewriting the whole thing and consolidating all the sub-articles into one (why do you have a full article on allegations against Sai Baba, and a full section about these allegations as well as numerous references to ex-followers peppered throughout all this article?), this article's future is hopeless. As long as POV pushers such as Andries are allowed to put a stronghold in these articles with complete disregard for factual accuracy and the neutral point of view of Wikipedia, this article will remain in shambles. Good luck to you Thaumaturgic, you will need infinite patience and stamina to deal with him.

Joshua Kermogh

Where are the factual inaccuracies? In the case of SSB, an ex-follower (Alexandra Nagel) published academic articles of very good quality. It is okay to use that as a reference, according to Wikipedia guidelines. The allegations are so many that they do not fit into this article. Andries 09:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Kermogh and others, if you want the alleged factual inaccuracies removed from the article Sathya Sai Baba then I invite you to make references for every sentence and attributed opinion in the article. This is tedious but it has yielded good results in other articles in which I was involved. (I cannot find any factual inaccuries in the article). Thanks. Andries 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. Andries, Alexandra Nagel is a Sai Antagonist. Moreno sent me the relevant information about her. Alexandra Nagel made an admission that she is active in the "expose". Therefore, her articles are biased. She is not neutral. Just because her articles appear to be of "good quality" do not make them true. I think a more accurate description is that the information on this article is one sided. It does not present counter point of views to the Sai Antagonist point of view. Moreno has presented valid refutations to each and every single one of the allegations made on this page. You also make sure that the Sai Antagonist point of view is listed highest on the page. I noticed how you moved the media link I submitted to the bottom of the list. You are biased. You keep trying to formulate your argument on other's education, other's articles, etc. You also agreed to 5 opposing links. You are allowing Hummel's link. You try to sneak in as many Sai Antagonistic links as you can into this article. I see what you are doing. I am also moving the critics paragraph that has been inserted in the beginning of the article to the appropriate "Skeptics And Opponents" section. The section it is in now, has nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba himself, which is the first category. Thaumaturgic 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. It is basically irrelevant for Wikipedia what the POV of a person is. What does greatly matter is that Alexandra Nagel managed to get her articles published in academic sources. Andries 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The first section should contain a summary of the whole article, so moving the critic paragraph is wrong. Andries 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The first section is about Sathya Sai Baba. There is a relevant section for Critics and Skeptics. That paragraph is about critic and skeptics, so it belong in the appropriate category. If you leave it, I will include a "pro sai" summarization. It's your choice. 172.166.12.206 20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The first section is a summary of the whole article according to Wikipedia standards. You have the right to write a short attributeda rebuttal to the allegation in the summary of the article, but do not assume that Gerald Joe Moreno speaks on hehalf of all devotees and proponents. The most important fact is missing that is that the SSB and the SSO advise not to react on criticisms. Andries 20:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you do not speak for me and my viewpoints. That much is certain. Moreno speaks for me and other devotees I personally know. Consequently, Moreno speaks for us as well. Moreno does not speak for "all" devotees and proponents just as you do not speak for "all" critics and skeptics. There are reasons why devotees and still devotees. I think Moreno makes our case nicely. I am certain you do not want us reacting to criticisms. But we are. You now need to deal with it. Thaumaturgic 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I can speak for your viewpoints because I know them so well. In general viewpoints have to be attributed. Please try to read more on the way to edit Wikipedia articles. I do not have the time to explain you everything here. Andries 21:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I see no reason why Moreno cannot speak for you and your viewpoints. He knows them well too. Thaumaturgic 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No,Gerald Joe Moreno does not have the insider knowledge about the sexual abuse that I have. If he showed more honesty and fairness in dealing with the allegations then ex-devotees might be willing to give him more private, sensitive confidential information. I fully agree with what Basava Premanand wrote on this topic. Andries 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does user:Thaumaturgic remove this from the summary?

"SSB has advised his followers not to react to criticism and not to trust the internet and he did not give a detailed rebuttal to the allegations of sexual abuse and complicity of murder. "

This sounds like important information to me. I admit that I am writing from memory, not from references to his speeches, but most of the information is mentioned and referenced in Alexandra Nagel's articles. Andries 21:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are your claims, Andries. Anyone can make claims. In many years, neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to make any legal leeway against Sathya Sai Baba. That is because your evidence is insufficient or it doesn't exist. Moreno knows more than you regarding "oilings" because he got one. Moreno said it was completely non-sexual and Sathya Sai Baba even asked him to observe celibacy. I've read Moreno's page about you and you have already said enough to substantiate my claim that you are biased. Even though you claim you have "insider knowledge", obviously you don't have enough "insider knowledge" to vindicate the sexual abuse allegation made against you by those who made claims against Sathya Sai Baba. Why are you unable to contact them and have them clear your name? You need to substantiate your claim that Sathya Sai Baba advised his followers not to react to critcism. Moreno sent me the relevant discourse and Sathya Sai Baba said he had nothing to do with the internet. He did not say anything about his followers not using the internet. Thaumaturgic 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do you know that the oilings are non-sexual? Moreno, like many others, perceived them as non-sexual when he received them, but several young men later changed their opinions. Some of them after they were sexually abused by SSB. Andries 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what Alexandra wrote

"On open message boards devotees vehemently argued with ex-devotees about the matter, even though Sai Baba on October 15, 1999 said in a sermon:

“Some of the elders sitting at the Verandah are indulging in gossip; it is finding its way into the internet. (…) Swami has nothing to do with the internet. Not only now, even in future also. You should not indulge in such wrong activities.”[3]

A message he repeated on September 26, 2000 by saying “Internet is like a waste paper basket”, followed three days later, on September 29, by

I have already told you about internet, radio, video etc. We have seen so many people who have been exposed to these media. But, what is their effect? All transient, passing clouds that come and go. It is an utter waste of time. It is all business oriented. That is not our aim. Do not hanker after internet: turn to the innernet. Concentrate on inner vision.[4] " Andries 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Gee Andries, then why is one of the official SSO websites Radio Sai? Why does SSB even have an International Internet Page if he doesn't want people using the internet? Besides these, there are the official Books & Publications Trust website, the Institute of Higher Learning website, the Indian Sai Org website and SaiCast. It is clear that SSB was talking in context of negativity on the internet, that disturbs people's peace of mind. My search for the truth has shown me that Anti-Sais lie and deceive people with misrpesentations and propaganda. Your interpretation to SSB's words is just another example. All of this has been fully discussed on my SaiSathyaSai Site.

Regarding non-sexual oilings, Click Here. And you are right, people DID change their minds about what happened to them. When SSB allegedly did what he did to them, they had NO clue that it was sexual at all! Only later, AFTER reading about other alleged stories of sexual abuse, did they CHANGE their minds. These alleged victims are perfectly entitled to change their minds. My grievance is that the general public has not been told that they changed their minds. Anti-Sais make sure people do not know that. And it is amusing that you think that you can speak for devotees! My page about you shows that you are completely biased against Sathya Sai Baba. Even as recently as September 2005, you said you felt like you had been "RAPED" by SSB. Now you are claiming you are Mr. Neutrality. Yeah, right!

SSS108 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, why did you reject my original post in the summary section, yet you made it even longer with your edits? As you said, "(I said a short rebuttal in the summary)". If you want to discuss that, you should do so under the relevant section. I now fully believe Moreno about you. You are completely biased and hypocritcal. You edited my section because you said it was too long, and then you edit it and make it longer. Thaumaturgic 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What you wrote was incorrect. Andries 22:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are more references for Baba telling follower to shun the internet as published in article in India Today.

"The devotees are also countering the Internet war on two fronts. First, everybody is encouraged to shun the Internet. Explains Hal Honig, a senior Sai official in New York: "Swami tells us not to look at the Internet but at the inner net." And secondly, by posting sites that support Baba's teachings. One such site-The Sai Critic-urges devotees to believe only their experiences with Baba, stating, "When doubt walks in through the front door, faith walks out of the back door."

Andries 22:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course when a rebuttal is mentioned then the rebuttal by SSB himself must be mentioned too. Andries 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Those were not Sathya Sai Baba's actual words. Those were the interpreted words from Honig. As Moreno pointed out, Sathya Sai Baba has about five official internet sites, fully associated with and approved by the Sai Organization. Sathya Sai Baba would not allow these sites if he was against the internet or didn't want his devotees using the internet. If you want to make a rebuttal, you should do so under the relevant section. Are you saying that I can go through the article and provide counter-rebuttals to the Sai Antagonist point of views? There are counter rebuttals to your statements in the summarized section. If you can rebut mine, I can rebut yours. Thaumaturgic 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Both India Today and Alexandra Nagel believed that SSB's words of discouragement of the use of the interent are related to counntering negativity. These are notable opinion and hence can be inserted in the article. Please understand that Gerald Joe Moreno has a personal website who is cited and quoted by nobody except a few followers of SSB. He is not quoted by by reputable media source nor favorably quoted by any person who has written academic articles about SSB. This in sharp contrast to the articles and testimonies by ex-followers whose views are shared by e.g. journailist Mick Brown of the Telegraph, Dominic Kennedy of the Times etc. In other words Gerald Joe Moreno represents a minority opinion and deserves minority space as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Gerald, if you want to know why I consider your website full of endless intellectual dishonesty and distortions and not worth to be quoted in this article or rebutted outside of Wikipedia then here is an example. You wrote

"When SSB allegedly did what he did to them, they had NO clue that it was sexual at all!"

True but you omit the main reason why these young men consider this non-sexual. That is because they see SSB as a saint who has no lust, according to his claims. If any other person than a doctor had done the same as SSB then these young men would probably have gotten quite suspicious. In other words, the only reason why these young men experience SSB's oilings as non-sexual is because they have already been brainwashed and lost common sense. Andries 23:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay my statement that SSB has advised followers not to respond to criticism may have been inaccurate but it is a fact that the SSO has not officially responded to the criticism of sexual abuse and other criticisms. And it is also a fact that SSB has not give a detailed rebuttal to the murder case in 1993 and the sexual abuse, attributing the negative stories instead to jealously and bribe respectively in Dec. 2000. See also "When the Telegraph Magazine contacted K Chakravarthi, secretary of the Puttaparthi ashram, he said, 'We have no time for these matters. I have nothing to say' and terminated the call."Andries 00:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, it is also possible that they were brainwashed by Sai Antagonists into thinking they were sexually abused, when they were not. Greg Gerson said that Sathya Sai Baba did not touch him sexually and did not request any sort of sexual favors. Greg Gerson said that Sathya Sai Baba materialized oil and applied it between his navel and public region. That's all that happened. Sathya Sai Baba never touched his genitals. Sai Antagonists claimed Greg Gerson was sexually abused. He was not. You and your Sai Antagonists like to distort the facts with your bias. I don't know about you Andries, but if Sathya Sai Baba shoved my head in his groin, forced me to hold his penis or tried to put it in my mouth, I don't care how much faith I had in Sathya Sai Baba, I would know that something sexual was occurring. Another valid question is why haven't sexual abuse victims filed a court case against Sathya Sai Baba? Moreno sent me the relevant link from Barry Pittard where he offered victims "world class legal resources". Why have they not utilized these resources? All you and your Sai Antagonists can do is make accusations on the internet, not allowing others to have an equal say in the matter. Although the Sai Organization has not officially responded, Sathya Sai Baba has. Sathya Sai Baba denied the allegations. Thaumaturgic 00:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is any rebuttal in the summary of article then of course it should include SSB's rebuttal. After all, this article is about him and he is one of the few person who is capable of giving an informed rebuttal. Gerald Joe Moreno's and Ram Das Awle's rebuttals are of secondary importance. Andries 00:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This article does not need three sections "devotees and proponents

This article has three sections containing the views and perspective of devotees 1. teachings 2. practices 3. Devotees and proponents (giving rebuttals to the allegations) Clearly the most logical thing is to merge nr. 3 into the section with the allegations as I have been trying to do several times. Andries 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, the most logical thing to do is to completely seperate the two views and isolate each view into their own designated category. That way, both views are adequately reflected under the relevant and appropriate sections. The rest of the article should be neutral and should not have information regarding the allegations. There is a seperate page for that. Thaumaturgic 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree the information in Wikipedia is generally organized per subject, not per Point of View. The reason why there is a separate article allegation because the allegations are so extensive that to treat them here all would overwhelm the biography. Andries 01:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears you are attempting to blur the lines between the favorable and unfavorable points of view. If you merge the points of view, you can edit the favorable point of view as you choose. I think that is what you are trying to do. What do you have to fear about seperating the viewpoints? I see no harm in it.Thaumaturgic 01:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it is wrong and somewhat misleading to state there are public affidavits and then write in a complete other place hat several journalists have affidavits. Clearly the affidavits are one subject and all the information should be grouped together. Same for several other subjects. Andries 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not wrong or misleading. Sai Antagonists see things their way. Proponents see it another way. That is why they are two different viewpoints that should be seperated. Who are the "several journalists"? I have only read about Kyro. Sai Antagonistic sites say they were published on the internet. This article now says they are confidential, etc. The fact is that no one has seen them. Thaumaturgic 01:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Journalists of India Today assert that they have Jens Sehti's affidavit. Look, you cannot expect those young men to tell their stories to all and sundry and especially not to fanatical dishonest proponents like Moreno. You first have to show that you are willing to be fair. Andries 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is normal in a serious biography to have it organized per subject, not per point of view. Suppose we have a biography of Adolf Hitler with a section of the Nazi view of Hitler that other people are not allowed to edit. That is ridiculous. Andries 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

India Today can assert whatever they want. Where is Jens Sethi's affidavit? Jens Sethi said he was going to make his affidavit public. Where is it? Also, if you want to merge the viewpoints, you are going to have to remove or rename the "skeptics and opponents" section. The "viewpoints" section is more "skeptics and opponents". A majority of this article discusses the viewpoints of "skeptics and opponents". There has to be a section for devotees and proponents. There is just no way around it. Thaumaturgic 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

India Today is a reputable source and one of India's most influential magazine so their article is important. In contrast to Gerald Joe Moreno's homepage that is cited by nobody. Andries 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are already TWO sections for the views of devotees and proponents, devoid of criticisms'. Expand those if you want. A third would be crazy. Andries 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And how many sections are there for skeptics? Almost the entire article inserts a skeptics point of view in each section. Tell me where there are other "Devotees and Proponents" point of views and I will move them (or you move them) to one section, the current section. Again, you are arguing you case from authority. Until the affidavit is made public, as Sethi said it would be, I don't believe it. Thaumaturgic 01:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

the other two sections devoted to the views of devotees and proponents are called "beliefs" and "practices". I am also the author of the article beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation. Please check how much criticism can be found there if you think that I am incapable of writing neutrally. Are there any inaccuracies in that article? Andries 02:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And yes, I am arguing from authority because that is the way Wikipedia works. Andries 02:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you are doing exactly what I thought you were doing. You are trying to eliminate the section so you can edit it and insert your own Sai Antagonistic viewpoint into it. That is exactly what you are doing. The inaccuracies in this article are that you present a one sided viewpoint and suppress and water down opposing views, to your own. I am going to make sure the Devotees and Proponents section stays. Thaumaturgic 02:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And how are you going to defend to other editors of Wikipedia your extensive quotes from Gerald Joe Moreno's website. Where is the indication that he is a reputable source, and not just representative of a minority viewpoint? Andries 02:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic there are three sections devoid of any criticism i.e. "teachings", "practices" and "organizations". That is quite a lot taking into account that SSB is an extremely controversial guru and seen for example by the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant as the example of how things can go terribly wrong when folling a guru. Andries

Why does Andries try to include the issue of Sathya Sai Baba's gender under "Practices"?

Andries, why do you believe that Sathya Sai Baba's gender should be kept under "Practices"? Again, you are trying to insert your viewpoint in every section. Thaumaturgic 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not want that, though there doesnot seem to be good place about the gender change in the article. Andries 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Nagel is a skeptic. It belongs under that section. Thaumaturgic 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

She has published an article about SSB in an academic journal. Andries 01:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So? She is still a skeptic. 172.191.132.227 02:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So she can be cited as a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

She can be cited as a reliable source for critics and skeptics. Not for a neutral point of view or a devotees point of view. Thaumaturgic 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

wrong, please try to learn how Wikipedia works. If you do not believe me ask it on Wikipedia:Village pump. Andries 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the response of Swami?

There was no detailed rebuttal? Where is it? The only thing that Swami ever said to Goldstein when he asked about the Young/Rahm case of sexual abuse is "Swami is Pure". That is not a detailed rebuttal. Andries 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba did not give a detailed response. However, Sathya Sai Baba did give a response. You even cited the Christmas discourse. He said that the internet stories were false and made mention to bribes. Detailed or not, a response was given. Moreno was sent an email from a Polish devotee/exdevotee, who knew Conny Larsson, who claimed that he was bribed by Conny Larsson to make fake allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Thaumaturgic 01:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, fine then we agree that SSB did not give a detailed public response and can write that. Andries 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Conny Larsson will probably may sue this Polish devotee for slander as soon has Conny knows the name. Andries 01:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Conny Larsson knows his name. Moreno even has the email published on his site. And Conny Larsson supposedly tried to bribe him and his brother. That would make two witnesses against Conny Larsson. Thaumaturgic 01:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries keeps deleting the Devotees and Proponents Section to insert his own viewpoint

So far, Andires has attempted to delete the "Devotees and Proponents" section entirely four times. Tell me that he is not forcing his viewpoint and doing exactly what Moreno accused him of? Where is a moderator when you need one? One who does not continually say, "moderate yourselves". Thaumaturgic 02:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The new section "Devotees and proponents" introduced duplications, for example about the long-distance miracles that are/were already described in practices. Clearly a redundant section. Andries 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what you wrote in the section "Devotees and Proponets"

"Devotees and Proponets also believe in Sathya Sai Baba's miraculous powers due to numerous, positive miracles, cures, manifestations, healings and visions attributed directly to the Guru by his followers, which have been documented on the internet and in books. These alleged miracles are world-wide and are not dependent on proximity to Sathya Sai Baba's physical form."

And this was already in the article, section "practices"

"He says that he can heal diseases of his devotees sometimes by his spiritual power and sometimes by taking on the disease himself. There is anecdotal evidence that supports this claim. Followers attribute many miracles to him which they claim have witnessed in his presence and in their own countries, such as spontaneous vibhuti manifestations on the pictures of Baba in their homes, and bilocation - the appearance of Sai Baba in their presence while he is also in another place. Followers also report that he has materialized out-of-season fruit several times. He says he performs these miracles to attract people and then to transform them spiritually. He also makes assurances of divine protection to his devotees. Followers report help from Sai Baba in difficult or dangerous situations."

Clearly there is a lot of overlap and reptitions in these paragrapsh in two different sections. Andries 02:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Then remove them from the other sections and leave the Devotees and Proponents section alone. The solution is that simple. You do not want to do that because you want to be able to water down that section with your own viewpoint. Thaumaturgic 02:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, an article of a religious group should first start with a section beliefs and practices. Of course, this is a biography but the disctinction between the SSB movement and the person of SSB is blurred. Andries 02:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk overlap, just look at the repeated claims attributed to skeptics. That is "overlap". Thaumaturgic 02:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that is another issue that can be worked upon, but you should make the article better not worse with your edits. Andries 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Every time I make an edit, you revert it. The article, as it was, was far worse than it is now. Since you were responsible for most of these edits, the sad state of the former article was your creation. You just want your viewpoint dominating the content in the article. I can see that now. Thaumaturgic 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You admit that you extra introduced overlap and repetitions. Please improve the article by removing the overlap in a proper way. Andries 03:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just moved "viewpoints" over to "skeptics and opponents". The entire "viewpoints" section was about critics. Except for one sentence, which was moved to "Devotees and Proponents". Andries, now work on your own "overlap". There's plenty of it. Thaumaturgic 03:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Jens Sethi already discussed under "skeptics and opponents" section. Andries being redundant.

Andries, why do you keep trying to introduce the information about Jens Sethi in the "Devotees and Proponents" section? Sethi is not a devotee. His story is mentioned, almost verbatim, under "Skeptics and Opponents". If you wish to elaborate on his story, you should do so under "Skeptics and Opponents". Make sure you add the part about why he was "treated like a criminal": He was caught, by the police, distributing a negative paper about Sathya Sai Baba to foreigners. Thaumaturgic 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

because that is relevant information for the subjects that Moreno discusses, the legal complaints. As I said, Wikipedia is usually organized per subject, not per point of view. Andries 04:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It was already discussed under "skeptics and critics". Earlier, you removed my section about Sathya Sai Baba's miracles because of "overlap". Now, you want to repeat the same information twice, in two different sections, despite being irrelevant to one section. As I see it, you are trying to water down the point of view expressed in "Devotees and Proponents". Stop being redundant. If you want to remove my sections because of overlap, then you should follow the same criterion you apply to me. Again, Jens Sethi said he was going to make his affidavit public. He has not. It seems that people are confusing "affidavits" with "written testimonies". I think that is why no one is willing to make them public. There is no proof that Jens Sethi made an affidavit. Have you seen it, Andries? Also, Jens was treated "like a criminal" becasue he was caught, by the police, distributing propaganada against Sathya Sai Baba. If you want to mention it, tell the whole story. Not just your one sided version. Thaumaturgic 04:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The repetition is an unfortunate but predictable consequence of your insistence to structure the article per POV instead of per subject. All information about affidavits should be grouped together. Same for criminal complaints. There is proof that Sethi made and affidavit, after all Alexandra Nagel and India Today are reputable sources wrote it. Andries 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is due to your insistence to suppress viewpoints that do not agree with yours. As I said earlier, the reason why you want to merge it all together is so you can water down the section completely with your arguments. If you want to write about Moreno's attacks, you should do so under the skeptics section. You already wrote about Sethi. You are just trying to create dissention so that you can get your way. You don't have to include Jens Sethi in that section. Moreno is right, you are "maintaining soviet-style control" over this article. I think we need moderation. I don't know how to request it. Will willmcw or someone else request moderation? If I leave this article alone for an hour, you will completely alter it and change it back to your point of view. This it totally unfair. Thaumaturgic 04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote "If you want to write about Moreno's attacks, you should do so under the skeptics section." So you want me first to write the complaints by critics about Moreno and then in another succeeding section introduce Moreno's writings? Clearly the structure you propose is flawed. Andries 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do ask for moderation and tell the moderator also that Gerald Joe Moreno's personal website is quoted and cited neither by academics and the media. This is in contrast to opinions to critical ex-devoteesof, like David Bailey in the Times, Hari Sampath and Glen Meloy in India Today and salon.com, Basava Premanand by the BBC etc. Andries 04:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already requested moderation but received no replies yet. Andries 04:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Moreno's site is not cited by "academics and the media". Moreno is the source and the main reference for the proponents viewpoint. Thus, he is cited. Once again, the "academics and media" you cite, are biased and have an Sai Antagonistic viewpoint. As a matter of fact, you already said that the BBC, the Danish TV and Salon.com are sympathetic with critics. Consequently, their viewpoints are not neutral. That is what you are failing to understand, and repeatedly so. 172.133.136.151 06:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is Moreno cited? The source and the main reference for followers are the words of SSB. Once again, Wikipedia gives majority space to majority views as per the Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. Basically it does not matter what the media and academics say: Wikipedia reports what they say using the best sources available. Ask experienced editors if you do not believe me. Andries 11:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In general I do not have a problem citing the devotees view, but Moreno's obscure personal website is so full of distortions intellectual dishonesty and endless hairsplitting that he does not deserve to be quoted here. For example, he fails to understand that followers, like Alaya Rahm, can retain their public face of devotees in spite of having private doubts after being sexually abused. How can you convey this sensitive information to other devotees who constitute your complete social life and in the case of Alaya Rahm his family? I had problems with this myself and entertained privated doubts while remaining a public face. I have no intention to rebut all his endless distortions here or elsewhere. He simply does not deserve to quoted as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 11:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Moreno is cited under the Proponents point of view. Just as Sai Antagonists are cited under their section. It is my opinion that your Sai Antagonistic websites are replete with distortions, intellectual dishonesty and endless hairsplitting. Therefore, using your standard, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy, Premanand and others do not deserve to be quoted here. You are biased and feel that views opposing your own should not be made known. I am not attempting to eliminate your point of view, although I think Moreno has made a very strong case that Sai Antagonists are dishonest and have lied about Sathya Sai Baba. Regarding Alaya Rahm, have you read the transcripts? After his second trip (after being molested dozens of times), he was writing love poems to Sathya Sai Baba. Does that sound like a man suffering the trauma of sexual abuse? You have every intention to rebut Moreno. You have attempted to do so. You also changed the title to my section, giving others the impression that they can introduce other subject material that is irrelevant to a devotees and proponents point of view. This proves that you are intellectually dishonest and biased. Therefore, you should not be allowed to determine the content to this article. Viewpoints, other than your own, should not have to pass your inspection and have your seal of approval. Thaumaturgic 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I only rebut Moreno here because you insist on quoting him extensively in violation of the Wikipedia: NPOV guidelines. One the reasons why ex-devotees do not trust Moreno with testimonies is because he lacks empathy as can also be seen about his (possibly willful) lack of understanding of the Rahm case. Andries 15:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please understand that Steel was quoted by Alexandra who published articles in academic magazines about SSB. None of that is the case with Moreno. This is how Wikipedia works, like it or not. 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistake by me regarding Rahm's response to Moreno

I admit that I made a mistake with regarding Al Rahm's response to Moreno. I accidentally mixed up the introductory comments by saiguru webmaster to Rahm's e-mail with Rahm's own words. Thanks for pointing that out. Andries 16:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Goldstein Comments & Bias

Thank you for admitting your error, Andries. Unfortunately, you have quite a long record of making errors. Regarding Goldstein, you said: "Al Rahm (then under the pseudonym Young), said in the TV documentary Seduced by Sai Baba that he talked with the highest leader in the USA (Goldstein) about the sexual abuse by SSB of his son. According to Rahm, the leader responded by saying that he hated the idea of having wasted 25 years of his life." There is already a link to the Divine Downfall article. You are promoting Robert Priddy's site, adding more links to your viewpoint. Should I add a rebuttal with a link to Moreno's page? Although the statement from Goldstein is true, what is the relevance to devotees and proponents? Also, if you include this statement, then you must include how Goldstein queried Sathya Sai Baba, accepted Sathya Sai Baba's response, and concluded that Sathya Sai Baba was telling the truth, not only because of the reply that Sathya Sai Baba gave him, but due to 30 years of up-close and intimate observation between Sathya Sai Baba and students and devotees. Goldstein is a VIP. He observed Sathya Sai Baba up-close, in the most intimate way, for many, many years and has never seen anything inappropriate in Sathya Sai Baba's behavior. That, coupled with Sathya Sai Baba's response sums up why he rejected the Rahms explanation. Taking one sentence from Goldstein and trying to make a case against him is unfair and biased. You should allow others to read the Divine Downfall interview and let them form their own conclusions. You are trying to force your point of view. Thaumaturgic 16:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Al Rahm's statement is important and representative of the true feelings of old ardent devotees, who cannot accept the truth because it is simply too painful. Instead, they rely (very understandably) on endless denials and rationalizations. Feel free to add the statement that Goldstein accepted SSB's explanation that "Swami is pure." Should we also include the comments by Goldstein that his life had no sense of purpose until he met SSB as voiced in the documentary, Secret Swami. Clearly these statements indicate that Goldstein response is emotionally unable to break with SSB. Andries 16:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about Goldstein are irrelevant. The article is about Sathya Sai Baba, not Goldstein. There is already a link to the articles that talk about this. You are now adding referenced links that go directly to Sai Antagonistic sites. You agreed to five links for each viewpoint. You are now trying to secretly undermine this agreement by adding referenced links. I similarly can provide referenced links that rebut every single one of the allegations made on this page. However, that is not what this page is about. Is it? And what are you talking about when you said, "Al Rahm's statement is important and representative of the true feelings of old ardent devotees who cannot accept the truth..."? Feel free to write your skeptical viewpoints about Goldstein under the relevant section. Once again, you are trying to force your viewpoint in the "Devotees and Proponents" section. You refuse to clean up the "overlap" in the skeptics section, but assiduously try to compromise a viewpoint that you cannot accept. Try to be honest and fair, Andries. Thaumaturgic 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Wikpedia is organized per subject. You started referring to Goldstein, not me. So if you want to discuss the subject of Goldstein loyalty to the guru then you can expect to have multiple sources used. Please also keep in mind that according to Wikipedia guidelines, a transcript of TV documentary (by Danish State Radio) is a superior source when compared to a hompepage (of Gerald Joe Moreno). Andries 16:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What I propose is to organize the allegations per subject, not per POV

• sexual abuse
• false miracles
• contradictory teaching
• Exaggerated claims of charity
• etc

Andries 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I simply said that Goldstein (one among several) is a devotee who still maintains his devotion to Sathya Sai Baba. I made no argument for or against Goldstein. You did. Therefore, you introduced the argument. A link has already been provided to the Seduced article. You are trying to reference Sai Antagonistic sites that express your viewpoint. You are trying to remove the Points Of View so you can edit it, and water it down with your point of view. There is nothing wrong with the current setup. All these changes you seek to introduce are made with the express motive of soliciting your viewpoint and suppressing other viewpoints. Up unto the time I introduced the "Devotees and Proponents" section, you had no problem with the "Skeptics and Opponents" section. This page is not a page to argue every single detail against Sathya Sai Baba. It is supposed to present concise summarizations to critical and favorable viewpoints, among other relevant information about Sathya Sai Baba. If you want to make a detailed case against Sathya Sai Baba, you should do so on another page. As a matter of fact, it has already been done. Thaumaturgic 17:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want a summary then the article does not deserve more than one or two sentences presenting Moreno's viewpoint. The fact is that SSB is now probably the most controversial living guru after Shoko Asahara and this article should reflect that. There are no good sources to defend SSB in this article. Moreno's homepage is not a good source according to wikipedia guidelines. Andries 17:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do you know why Goldstein, Indulal Shah and Phyllis Krystal remain loyal to their guru? Please provide references for your assertions about their reasons for staying loyal. In contrast the case of Tigrett seems clear and what you wrote is correct. Andries 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you are totally unfair. Moreno is the main reference that refutes the allegations made by skeptics, critics, etc. Therefore, if you discuss all the criticisms against Sathya Sai Baba, a proponents viewpoint, that counters all those criticisms, is warranted and justified. I also support Moreno's viewpoint. And so do the devotees that I know. If homepages are not good sources, then I wonder why you keep trying to secretly reference them, especially Robert Priddy's. Moreno's page is an exhaustive resource that counters the claims of skeptics. It is a source for devotees and our viewpoint. Therefore, reference to him is necessary to defend our Point of View. Once again, you are trying to suppress viewpoints that counter your own. Regarding Goldstein, Shah and Krystal, they are still devotees. Tigrett also maintains his loyalty to Sathya Sai Baba. Show me the references that show otherwise. Thaumaturgic 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert Priddy was cited by Alexandra, who published academic articles about SSB. Besides Priddy has also published a book called The End of the Dream, published by Premanand, who is extensively and favorably quoted by the BBC. Moreno is cited by no-one (with very good reason). Andries 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Goldstein, Shah and Krystal are still followers. I am only asking for references for the reasons that you stated why they are followers. I think you are correct in the case of Tigrett. You wrote "Isaac Tigrett, Goldstein, Krystal, Shah and other high ranking devotees, maintain their faith and devotion in face of the allegations, due to personal, spiritual and miraculous experiences with Sathya Sai Baba." Andries 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And? Do you think they are maintaining their devotion just because? Furthermore, I noticed that you are trying to create more sections for skeptics and opponents. All those views are the viewpoints of skeptics and opponents and they should be under one section. Instead of removing irrelevant information, you are trying to spread it out. Should I create new categories for Devotees and Proponents? Thaumaturgic 18:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know why they remain devotees. You seem to know, but please provide references before writing that in the article. What information that I inserted do you consider irrelevant? I do not see irrelevant information. Andries 18:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the structure, there is a difference between concrete allegations and accusations and views on the guru. Those should be two different sub-sections. Andries 18:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is absurd and amounts to what, as you call it, "hairsplitting". You are suggesting that Goldstein, Krystal and Shah are devoted to Sathya Sai Baba blindly, and not out of any sort of personal, spiritual and miraculous experiences. They have all talked about Sathya Sai Baba's miracles and their spiritual experiences. They are still devotees. Your bias is making you see things in a weird way. You created two sections. Both have names to ex-devotees and critics. Yet, you try to seperate them under two categories. The arguments are the same. They all come from ex-devotees and skeptics. You are simply trying to dominate the article with your viewpoint. Stop it. Thaumaturgic 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Concrete allegations" are your assumptions. If they are "concrete", show us the court cases that back them up. Show us the indisputable proof. If you want to push this, then I will create two section to "Devotees and Proponents". One that addresses "concrete allegations" and one that addresses "viewpoints". Is that acceptable to you? Thaumaturgic 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusations like sexual abuse and sleight of hand are very concrete, in contrast to the accusation that SSB is a cult leader or a demon. Andries 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Goldstein remains a devotee because becoming and ex and facing that he was wrong all those years and wasted these years it too humiliating and painful to face. Andries 18:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The sexual abuse victims refuse to file suit against Sathya Sai Baba. They have refused despite being offered "world class legal resourcees". That is not "concrete". Sathya Sai Baba has not been conclusively shown to fake materializations. There are suspicious movie clips. That's all. Even the Gurubusters movie clip was given two entirely different descriptions as to what Sathya Sai Baba "faked", despite his "faking" being clearly shown. It does not matter what you think and believe about Goldstein. That is not the point to this article. Please stay on topic. You did not answer my question: Am I allowed then, to make two section to "Devotees and Proponents" with a section devoted to "concrete" allegations and another section devoted to "viewpoints"? If your answer is no, then you need to remove your two sections and revert it back to one. And stop referencing ex-devotees as authorities on betel nut. You are making this article so long and convoluted, I think it is actually self-defeating. Thaumaturgic 18:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I restructured the article. I moved the sub-section "views on the guru" to the bottom because this is an encyclopedia after all and deals in the first place with facts, not with view points. Andries 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What matters is that you are speculating in the article about the reasons why Krystal, Shah, and Goldstein stay devotees. This is not allowed. Please provide references for their reasons. Andries 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bad. You need to prove my comment wrong. If you want to remove speculations, then I think that will cut your skeptics and opponents section in half. Remove my "speculation" and I will remove yours. Thaumaturgic 19:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

These are attributed comments. The burden of proof for a statement in Wikipedia is on the person making it. May be you want to edit other articles too before editing difficult articles such as these. Read the guidelines first. Andries 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please do not delete the list of books by SSB. Remember that this article should not be a webdirectory but a google result. Andries 19:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice to anyone wanting to make substantial changes to the article

I think the annotated bibliography in three parts by Brian Steel is an invaluable tool when writing about SSB here or elsewhere

1. Part 1: Items of a scholarly or academic nature or provenance
2. Part 2:Work Critical of SSB and his Mission by non-devotees (including ex-devotees)
3. Part 3:A Basic Bibliography of Works about Sathya Sai Baba by the Sathya Sair Organisation and his Devotees

Andries 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Steel is an open skeptic of Sathya Sai Baba. He is not neutral or a devotee, so he cannot speak from a neutral or devotee's point of view. Furthermore, those links comes from Brian Steel's personal homepage (which Andries belittled when it came to Moreno). Moreno provided me with the following link about Brian Steel and his contradictory statements about Sathya Sai Baba's discourses:

(link snipped)

I hope everyone notices how Andries keeps citing skeptics and ex-devotees as reliable and accurate sources. They are biased and do not reflect my viewpoint, which Andries is actively trying to suppress. Andries keeps on including a "viewpoints" section that only contains the viewpoints to skeptics and ex-devotees. He purposely renamed the original section so he could create another section to spam him viewpoint. Thaumaturgic 21:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, the SaiGuru site belongs to Lionel Fernandez. The SaiExposed site belong to Conny Larsson. The ExBaba site belongs to RVDS and Andries (verified by Barry Pittard). These need to be attributed to the people who own them. Thaumaturgic 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the websites of Steel and Moreno is that it is in the first case difficult to spot inaccuracies, paranoia, or lack of common sense. In the latter case it is easy. I do admit that however that Moreno occasionally makes good points. Andries 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, that is because Moreno is not verbose, like Brian Steel. Sai Antagonists water down viewpoints with such long articles, no one can make any sense out of them. Brian Steel's position is entirely contradictory, inaccurate and lacks common sense. You can blame Moreno for pointing this out. That doesen't change the fact that Brian Steel completely contradicted himself. Thaumaturgic 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[See later amended version] "entirely contradictory, inaccurate and lacks common sense". That is a breathtakingly irresponsible and unsupported summary of my hundreds of pages of (critical) investigations and 45 pages of annotated Bibliography for serious study of Sathya Sai Baba. The faceless writer relies on and propagates the unproven words of a notorious propagandist and attention-seeker who has been taking advantage of Wikipedia's open invitation for all to participate. Does Wikipedia have any way of dealing with these personal attacks? If so, I suggest this case be investigated. And, Wiki administrators, who protects those (many?) people who do not even know that they have been maligned by such controversial contributors to the fringes of this Encyclopedia? [Brian Steel, 17 December 2005]

Amended version of the previous comments: "entirely contradictory, inaccurate and lacks common sense" That is a breathtakingly irresponsible and unsupported summary of my detailed critical investigation of the Discourses. It is accompanied by other disparaging or misleading assertions (“verbose” “no one can make sense out of them” and “water down”) and follows an implicit earlier unwarranted dismissal of the relevance of 45 pages of annotated Bibliography as a tool for the serious study of Sathya Sai Baba. The faceless writer relies on and propagates the ad hominem tactics and misrepresentations concerning my research on the packaging of the Discourses by a notorious propagandist and attention-seeker who has been taking advantage of Wikipedia's open invitation for all to participate. Does Wikipedia have any way of dealing with these personal attacks? If so, I suggest this (SSB) case be investigated. And, Wiki administrators: who protects those (many?) people who do not even know that they have been maligned by such controversial contributors to the fringes of this Encyclopedia? [Brian Steel. 17 December 2005]

The case of Jed Geyerhahn

In the Seduced program, Jed Geyerhahn claimed he was 15 years old. However, on both the BBC Radio program and the Neural Surfer article (Geyerhahn's handwritten account), Geyerhahn claimed he was 16 years old. Therefore, two out of three accounts, Geyerhahn claimed he was 16. In none of these 3 testimonies, did Geyerhahn ever mention being kissed by Sathya Sai Baba. Geyerhahn added that part on David Lane's SaiDebate page. Andries should stop trying to change Geyerhahn's age to 15. The article with the most merit is Geyerhahn's detailed, handwritten testimony, which he personally submitted to the Neural Surfer. In this testimony, Geyerhahn said he was 16 when he had his first oiling experience. Thaumaturgic 15:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries trying to create multiple categories for skeptics and opponent's viewpoints

Andries is also adding the "Viewpoints" section, which is entirely about skeptics and opponents. Andries is trying to create more categories for critics and skeptics to spam his viewpoint. Thaumaturgic 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the confusion about the age of Jed Geyerhahn. I was not aware and I had simply copied his age from the transcript of the Seduced documentary. Andries 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the viewpoints section is not entirely about skeptics and opponents but shows the diversity of opinions about the guru: followers, skeptics, Christians, diverging viewpoints among former followers, scholars of religion. Andries 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, you have tried changing the "viewpoints" section so that you can continue to spam your viewpoint. Tal Brooke, David Bailey, Hari Sampath, Basava Premanand, ex-followers, Glen Meloy and Anti-Cult activists all fall under "accusations and allegations". As a matter of fact, you already discuss Basava Premanand, rationalists, Priddy, Steel, Nagel, Hari Sampath and ex-devotees in the "accusations and allegations" section. You are being redundant and trying to dominate the article with your viewpoint. It's time you rename your section "Critics and Skeptics" and stop trying to make this page a critics and opponents page. The "accusations and allegations" already discusses "diverging viewpoints". Critics, Skeptics and Opponents should be lumped together in one section. You are trying to create multiple sections. Thaumaturgic 20:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I continue to hold the opinion that there is a difference between concrete allegations and viewpoints. The latter section has btw doubtful encyclopedic value. Alexandra Nagel's excellent article A guru accused has a similar structure. Andries 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And I continue to hold the opinion that there are no differences. Alexandra Nagel is a skeptic and critic of Sathya Sai Baba. Where does wikipedia say we must follow Alexandra Nagel's structure? You are trying to determine the structure so that it will favor your viewpoint. The reason you do not want to merge the two sections is because they repeat the same arguments and you do not want to remove the redundant sections. There are several references to Premanand, Bailey, Sampath and others. You should work on removing on the redundancy first. Thaumaturgic 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the section "Accusations and allegations" and the section "views of the gurus" do not repeat the same arguments. There are multiple references to Premanand and Bailey because 1. opinions in Wikipedia have to be attributed and 2. I have organized the sections "Accuations and allegations" per subject (false miracles, sexual abuse, contradictions), not per point of view. Andries 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Accusations and Allegations" section is about accusations and allegations made by ex-devotees, critics and skeptics. You are trying to repeat this in the "Viewpoints" section. There is no reason why you cannot state the accusations and allegations made by ex-devotees, critics and skeptics in that section. I know what you are trying to do. You have become predictable. Thaumaturgic 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

no, it is not a repetition of the accusations. It is about views. That is different. Please point out the repetions in the two section if you really think that they repeat each other. Andries 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Why you need two sections to discuss Premanand, two sections to discuss Hari Sampath and two sections to discuss ex-devotees and others, is perplexing. I don't need two section to discuss views and subjects. If you do not know how to write in such a way where you can summarize Premanand's (and other's) beliefs and views, then perhaps you should ask for help. You are forcing your viewpoint and trying to repeat the same information in different ways in multiple sections. Until we get a fair moderator, I feel this is totally unfair and I will continue to insist on fairness and equality. Do what you like. Tomorrow is another day. 172.170.37.8 07:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I need two sections because I organized the article per subject (e.g. sexual abuse, fake miracles), not per viewpoint (of e.g Basava Premanand, Gerald Joe Moreno, SSB, Robert Priddy etc). I only used Hari Sampath and Premanand as attributed examples of widely held viewpoints as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries

172.179.37.8 If you accuse me of needing two sections for critical viewpoints then why are THREE sections needed to describe the views of followers Teachings, beliefs and practices, subsection Rebutatals by proponents and Views on the guru? Andries 09:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Before I started posting here, Andries, every section expressed your critical point of view. You didn't seem to mind that at all. "Devotees and Proponents" specifically deals with counter arguments to the allegations made by critics and skeptics. It does not repeat any of the information in "teachings, beliefs and practices". Tell where the information is being duplicated? I agreed and removed the section that alluded to Sathya Sai Baba's powers. You purposely changed the name from "Critics and Opponents" to "accusations and allegtions" because you realized you could not post your views in two sections. So you changed the name and are now trying to force your viewpoint in another section. That is not fair and until a real moderator comes here, you are going to have to face the fact that I am not going to let you do what you are trying to do. Thaumaturgic 15:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Basava Premanand was never a follower of Sathya Sai Baba

There is a reference in this article about Basava Premanand being a "ex-devotee" of Sathya Sai Baba. This is not true. On the Secret Swami program, Premanand said he had been investigating Sathya Sai Baba since 1968 and went public in 1976. Premanand joined the Sai Organization, not as a follower, but to get close to Sathya Sai Baba and expose him. Therefore, he was never a "devotee" and should not be described as a "ex-devotee" Secret Swami program text Thaumaturgic 17:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He was a follower according to his own assertion between 1968-1974. Andries 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That is his signature on the petition. On the Secret Swami, he said he had been trying to investigate Sathya Sai Baba since 1968. How can he be a follower/devotee when he was trying to investigate and expose him? Read the transcript to the Secret Swami, his confession is there. Premanand was never a follower. He simply joined the organization to investigate and expose Sathya Sai Baba. Thaumaturgic 20:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

10.20.30 Tanya Datta How many years have you been chasing Sai Baba then?

I guess that Premanand was interested in SSB's miracles as so many people were and are and wanted to investigate them. He did not say that he was a wanted to expose him since 1968. Andries 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

10.20.34 Basava Premenand I have been investigating him since nineteen sixty-eight.

10.20.38 Tanya Datta Nineteen sixty-eight.

10.20.39 Basava Premenand Sixty-eight. Investigating and drawing my conclusions and keeping it as a hobby.

10.20.46 Tanya Datta What do you think of him then?

10.20.47 Basava Premenand The thing is, you can explain miracles, you can expose people who act like miracle men and it was in nineteen seventy-six I started going to the public. Thaumaturgic 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No where did Premanand explicitly state that he was a devotee or a follower. You are getting that impression from the petition. There is a section on the petition that says "Period as a follower" and Premanand filled that section out with the years he was in the organization, investigating Sathya Sai Baba. In the Secret Swami, however, Premanand answered Tanya Datta and said he had been chasing and investigating Sathya Sai Baba since 1968. A devotee does not chase and investigate their guru. Premanand was trying to expose Sathya Sai Baba. That is my opinion and all the facts support it. Show me where Premanand, in his own words, said he was a "devotee" or a "follower". Thaumaturgic 21:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Premanand wrote that he was a follower between 1968-1974. Andries 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No he did not. Premanand filled out the section "Period as a follower:" with "1968-1974 Position in S.S.Org: Best Worker in SSB Org., Podanur". He simply held a position in the Sai Organization during the years 1968 - 1974. However, the truth came out in the Secret Swami when he said he was trying to investigate Sathya Sai Baba since 1968 itself. Premanand did not say anything about being a devotee or follower in the Secret Swami program. That would have been a crucial fact, yet it was never mentioned. Again, everyone who signs the petition has the option to fill out "Period as a follower:" section. Premanand never claimed, direct from his own mouth, that he was a devotee or follower of Sathya Sai Baba. What did come out of his mouth, recorded on video, is that he was trying to investigate Sathya Sai Baba since 1968, and he went public in 1976. So these comments need to removed. If you do not want to remove them, I will provide the necessary clarification. Thaumaturgic 22:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, he did not say it but he wrote it. This can be stated as such in the articel. 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He did not write it. What problem are you having understanding this point? If Premanand wrote it, that would be tantamount to him saying it. Premanand filled out the section "Period as a follower" with the information I provided earlier. He did not write that he was a follower. He filled out a section named "Period as a follower" because there was no other place for him to include the information that he was in the Sai Organization from 1968 - 1974. The fact that he was never a devotee was confirmed when he told Tanya Datta, direct from his own mouth, that he had been trying to investigate Sathya Sai Baba since 1968. In other articles, Premanand said that he donated land to get close to Sathya Sai Baba. Premanand did all of this to investigate and expose Sathya Sai Baba, which he claimed he did in 1976. Undoubtedly, you have been brainwashed with this untruth and you are having trouble accepting it. That is not my fault. Show me where Premanand specifically wrote that he was a follower. Thaumaturgic 15:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, I have re-worded it by saying that he said that he has been investigating SSB since 1968 and that he wrote that was a member of the SSO between 1968-1974. I hope this is okay. Please do not forget that SSB asserted in the booklet Sandeha Nivarini that a prospective follower should investigate the guru before accepting him. This may have been exactly what Premanand did. Andries 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Premanand was already a rationalist and skeptic at that time. He was not trying to investigate the guru before accepting him. Premanand's purpose was entirely different than finding a guru. Again, you need to substantiate where Premanand said, first-hand (written or verbal), that his intent was to investigate Sathya Sai Baba before accepting him as a Guru. That is your assumption. 172.141.223.83 00:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the webmaster for the Netherlands Exbaba site?

It appears that Andries is trying to deceive us. Moreno sent me the link to the screencapture where Andries Krugers Dagneaux (the same Andries who is trying to modify this page) said he was the "news, webmaster and contact" for the Netherlands Exbaba site. Just recently, Andries removed "news and webmaster" and left only the word "contact". He also blocked the site from archive.org. Reinier Van Der Sandt was never listed as a webmaster to the Netherlands ExBaba site. It appears that Andries removed this information so he can force his point of view and claim he has nothing to do with the Netherlands Exbaba site. Andries, why did you remove that information? Moreno is creating a page about this as we speak and I will post the link shortly. Thaumaturgic 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page that shows how Andries is trying to deceive us all by removing his "webmaster" status on the Netherlands Exbaba site. Although Reinier Van Der Sandt's name was never listed on the Netherlands Exbaba site, now it is. Andries is trying to give the impression that he is simply a "contact" and has nothing else to do with the Netherlands ExBaba site. I hope this enlightens wikipedia users about Andries bias and his attempts to cover his back. Therefore, Andries name should be referenced on the Netherlands Exbaba site.

Thaumaturgic 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was never the webmaster of exbaba, except for a very short period that lasted about one week. Information was not updated on exbaba partially because of my neglicence and because I moved and did not change my address due to some problems I had there that may have been caused by my critical stance against SSB. It happened to be changed by webmaster Reinier only recently because I requested that in the wake of a legal threat against exbaba which is unrelated to Wikipedia. The official formal decisions about the contents of the website is determined by a network of former Dutch followers of which I am an active member. Again, as so often Moreno, sees deception where a more plausible explanation is available. Andries 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what you say Andries. I doubt your excuse. For three years, you did not change it. Moreno pubicly noted that you were the webmaster for well over 6 months, and even then you did not change it. Reinier's name was never even listed on that page at all. Now it is. Who is the registrant for the Netherlands Site? There is only person who is the registrant. Who is it? Thaumaturgic 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In the course of my research I became aware of the fact that Reinier van der Sandt was the owner of exbaba.com. I made this information public so that people would know WHO was responsible for the numerous lies and disinformation being put out by that site. At that time, Reinier then took his name OFF of the page you are now talking about so as to attempt to remove himself from the equation for fear of legal repercussions. I was a DIRECT witness to those events. So Andries, once again is not being entirely honest regarding the whole situation. Whether Andries is the webmaster or NOT, he can still be held legally responsible for information on that site if he was actively involved in its dissemination, especially considering his ongoing involvement in the anti-Sai movement.Freelanceresearch 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrectly attributed edit

Willmcw accused me of making an edit to the article that I did not make. A person with the ip: 203.99.195.4 made the edit. I did not make the edit. Willmcw reverted the article and said I made the edit. I did not. You should be more careful who you accuse, Willmcw. Thaumaturgic 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you should be more careful in who you accuse of accusing you. Here is what was automatically entered as a summary when I reverted:

• (Reverted edits by 203.99.195.4 (talk) to last version by Thaumaturgic)

Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Also, please do not use usernames in talk page headers - focus on the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I see what you did and I accept full responsiblity for the error in my prior comment. Regarding Andries, I had to discuss him because his name should be listed for the Netherlands Exbaba site. That is why his name was discussed. Thaumaturgic 19:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

US State Department Warning

Andries, where is the proof that, "The warning was placed as a result of the notarized petitions by several alleged victims even though they have never filed formal charges in India." Show me the references. The US State Department makes no mention of "notarized petitions". Where did this information come from? Thaumaturgic 00:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I had my doubts too about the sentence that I did not write. Andries 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Proponents view to Christian, White Supremacist, Rationalist and Atheist movements against Sathya Sai Baba

Andries, why are you trying to remove the following quote, "Moreno asserted, with references, that there are Christian, White Supremacist, Rationalist and Atheistic movements against the Indian Guru." This happens to be a major point. References: Christian & White Supremacists. This article cites numerous Rationalists. These rationalists are Atheists, including Premanand. Why are you trying to remove it? It is an entirely valid point, from a Devotees and Proponents point of view. Thaumaturgic 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to the statement "with references". I find his references flimsy and if we write this then I could write "with references" at about 50 other places on the article. In other words, this statement has no added value and should be omitted. Andries

Then you should have removed "with references" instead of removing the entire comment. Thaumaturgic 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder, since there's a lot of reverting going on here...

Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)

Hi, I noticed there's a lot of reverting going on here. Please keep the 3RR in mind while editing, thanks! --JoanneB 17:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with this article

1. As a biographical article, it has suprisingly very little information about the life of this person.
2. The "Teachings, beliefs, and practices" section lack sources and examples of his teachnigs.
3. The "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" section is in this article is 2,000 words and the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba article is 2,400 words containing more or less the same material. The section in this article needs to be summarized.
4. The external links section is way too long. Wikipedia is not a web directory.

If no one volunteers to fix these problems, I will attempt to fix these myself sometime next week. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 1. The reason why this article contains so little biographical information is implicitly stated in the article in the Schulman quote: there is hardly reliable information about his life. Andries 17:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 2. Please not that the detailed article does mention references. And please also note that there were never disputes about this section "Teachings, beliefs, and practices" And when we cite examples, then what should we choose? This may lead to disputes. Andries 17:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ad 2. I admit that the section is too long "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" when compared to the detailed article. I will try to correct this by expanding the detailed article. Please note that SSB is an extremely controversial guru and heavily criticized and I see no reason why this article should not reflect this. Andries 17:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he is a "heaviliy criticized" person has nothing to do with it. George W. Bush is surely heaviliy criticized but his biographical article does not read as a leftist pamphlet. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of sexual abuse and false miracles are a very notable element of SSB's biography. How do you want to organize this article, strictly chronological, then it will read like in "In 1976 was accused of sexual abuse. [.....] And again in 1992 [........] Again in 2000. [......] Again in 2005." etc. I would like others to comment on the structure of this article too. Andries 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You could do a chronology of allegaions at Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. What is needed is to address the problems in this article as outlined above . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention to write a chronological biography here and at the same time omitting sexual abuse allegations. Those allegations are part of his biography aren't they? Andries 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No. They aren't. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like if biograhical articles were full of hearsay, innuendo, unproven allegeations by critics, etc? It would look like a tabloid not as an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)#

What is proven with regards to SSB? Very little. The allegations, widely reported by reputable media, such as the Times and the BBC are a notable part of his biography if you want to make a strictly chronological order. Andries 17:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am not interested in a pissing contest. The article as it stands has many problems and needs to be fixed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep adding unreferrenced material to this article [2]. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, okay, I will provide references, but please understand that this was my world for 9 years and that is disputed by nobody, including people who are extremely critical of my edits and that it takes a lot of time to find references. Andries 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

My previous comment is based on an overall assessment of the article. There is a huge amount ot stuff without any references. People reading this article do not know about Andries and his 9 years of involvement. Please follow Wikipedia:Cite sources and the article will be the better for it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a reference link to some biographical resources Jossi. There have been hundreds of positive books written about Sai Baba's miracles. I have over 15 years with Sai Baba but Andries thinks only his negative viewpoint valid and has called me and others brainwashed. There have geen numerous complaints filed regarding his monopolization of this article. http://www.saibabalinks.org/saibaba.htm Freelanceresearch 06:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That is hagiographical, non-scholarly, material. The biography on SSB can be expanded with the scorpion incident that seems accepted as the truth by all involved. Andries 06:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries but that site has MANY links to scholarly articles written by psychiatrists, medical doctors, priests and government officials, etc. I know its hard but please try to be honest for once. Freelanceresearch 10:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As I stated before, if editors involved do not address the problems stated above, I will do start working on it myself sometimes next week. Nonwithstanding the criticism against Sai Baba, the "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" sectionb reads more as a tabloid than an encyclopedic article. We need to fix that first. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with removal of allegations made by or published by reputable sources and I think that your intended removal contradicts Wikipedia guidelines. Ask for a request for comments if you like. Otherwise I will revert. Andries 16:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not mention removal, did I?. I mention summarizing these as there is a full article in which the same material is presented. As for your assertions of reputable sources, I see a lot of material withour references at all, and some others that are hardly reputable (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Libel. Then there are POV beauties such as the last sentence before "Stances by devotees...", or the last three paragparaphs in the section about Parliamentary, government, as examplee of POV dressed as NPOV, for example the last sentence does not name this person, and somehow is still included. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1. If you mean with POV beauty the sentence about anti-cult activists then this has to be attributed, I admit.
2. I will try to remove non-reputable sources and provide more references (which is easy for the accusations, but not for beliefs and practices), but please take into account that Alexandra Nagel who wrote an article published in academic magazine in 1994 about the matter extensively mentioned the victims and the internet too in updated and expanded versions of her article that she split in two i.e. in A Guru Guru Accused and Shiva Shaki.
3. I do not understand the problem with the UK parliamentary questions by Sackville and Colman. I admit that the question on of the European Commision should be re-written and specified. I do not understand the problem with the US State department warning.Andries 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course, History and Origins section needs to be expanded considerably. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please tell Andries this article is NOT just about the allegations! He is so fixated on HIS viewpoint he reverts almost anything anyone tries to write that doesn't have to do with HIS viewpoint! See how he spammed the board with all those links just because you are trying to rein him in a little? I have refused to even try to touch this article until Andries blatant monopolization of this article is dealt with. I will continue to confront this issue as long as Andries continues his obsession and dishonest manipulation, through excuse after excuse, of this article. Andries needs to be blocked from this article for a while so it can BREATHE. Freelanceresearch 22:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki, and neither you or I can stop anyone from editing this article. You can discuss as much as you can, but you can also be bold and edit the article if you think it will improve it. Just be sure your edits conform with the Wikipedia guidelines of Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view, and in particular in regard of reputable and reliable sources as it pertains to the use of on-line sources which make the bulk of the sources used in this article, such as personal websites.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You are so right, Jossifresco. The favorable/unfavorable viewpoints should be summarized, and this page is not the place to make the case for one viewpoint over another. Andries is trying to make the full case for his viewpoint on this page. It has already been made on the "Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba" page. I have stated this several times. As Moreno pointed out to me (in an email) the "Devotees and Proponents" section has 6 paragraphs, composed of 532 words. The "Opposition, Controversy and Allegations" section has 18 paragraphs, composed of 2,079 words. This shows the disproportionate amount of space dedicated to each viewpoint. Thaumaturgic 02:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Old references

Please note that the article used to contain many references that I had inserted but they had been removed in an edit war. Please help to re-insert them if they are still applicable. Thanks
1. Kasturi, Narayana Sathyam Sivam Sundaram Part I available online in Microsoft Word format
2. Dadlani, Sanjay K. Sai Baba Shiva or Sadhaka? and Steel, Brian Arnold Schulman's Baba - an Embarrassment for the SSO?
3. Padmanaban, R. Love is My Form
4. Steel, Brian More Circumstantial Evidence about SB's Date of Birth (April 2002)
5. Steel, Brian 1940-1945: the Need to Revise the Official Sathya Sai Baba Story (2004)
6. Sathya Sai Baba/Sathya Sai Organisation (6 July 1963) http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/1963/d630706.htm
7. Priddy, Robert Information about Sri Sathya Sai Baba of India (1998)
8. http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/pages/instts/HighLearn.htm
9. Yesodharan, Devi in the India Times
10. Indian Skeptic
11. Indian Skeptic
12 Narayana, A in the Hindu http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/04/04/stories/2002040400540200.htm
13. Haraldsson pages 205-211
14. Karanjia, R. K. in Blitz magazine (1976) http://home20.inet.tele.dk/saibabaofindia/blitz4.html
15. Beyerstein, Dale Sai Baba's miracles: an overview (1994)
16. Balaraman, Suresh and Sampath, Haresh Lies proved by Sathya Sai Baba's School Record (2002)
17.
18. Brooke, Tal Avatar of the Night
19. Nagel, A A guru Accused - Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile (August 2001)
20.
21.
22. Bailey, Faye and David et al The Findings
23.
24. Evers, Ella (2000)
25. Meer, Matthijs The truth will prevail...a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment, Published in Dutch magazine Spiegelbeeld (October 2000)
26. Badaev, Serguei The Story of my disqualification (March 2001)
27. Gallagher, Terry Disillusionment - a letter to the Bailey's
(obsoleted references) 28. Bradsher, Keith in the New York Times Sathya Sai Baba A Friend in India to All the World (December 1st, 2002) http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Sri-Sathya-Sai-Baba.htm
29.(obsoleted references) Steel, Brian Sequel to a Controversial New York Times Article About Sathya Sai Baba
30. SBS Australia http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=547
(obsoleted references)31. US State Department Consular Information Sheet India http://travel.state.gov/india.html
32. Vajpayee, A.B., Prime Minister of India; Bhagawati, P. N., Former Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of India; Ranganath Mishra, Ranganath, Chair Person, National Human Rights Commissioner of India,Formerly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India et al Sri Sathya Sai Baba, A Living Legend, An embodiment of love for all mankind
33.Sathya Sai Baba (25 December 2000) and Jealousy root cause of evil (3 July 1993) http://www.sathyasai.org/search/volume26/sss26-25.pdf (PDF file).
34. (obsolete reference) Bible Matthew 7:16.
35. Sathya Sai Baba (23-11-1968) http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/1968/d681123.htm
36 Sathya Sai Baba Sandeha Nivarini http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/askbaba/sandehanivarini/sandeha01.html

Andries 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Government response in Denmark

I read that the Dutch Church minister, Tove Fergo, after the screening of the TV documentary on SSB wanted to revoke legal recognition of the SSB movement in Denmark because the law states that a religious group cannot endorse acts that contradict generally accepted morality. This failed becaue there was no conviction against SSB for pedophilia, according to the Danish Secret Service. In response, a human rights group reported the Church minister to the police for failure to apply the same standards for the Catholic Church for which there are convictions of pedophilia.

I have read this on a bulletin board and not in Danish newspaper because I cannot read Danish. Any help would be appreciated. Andries 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

About Oiling: References Disputed

Regarding: "Several prominent devotees and officials of the Sathya Sai Organisation have confirmed that Sai Baba regularly takes down boys and young men's trousers and oils their genitals." Who are these "several prominent devotees and officials"? Besides Thorbjørn Meyer and W.G.J. van Dijk, where are the direct references to where "several prominent devotees and officials" have stated that SSB takes down trousers and oils genitals? I would also like to see the reference where Thorbjørn Meyer specifically said this. The words that are being attributed to Thorbjørn Meyer came from Robert Priddy. Thorbjørn Meyer did not make mention to genital oilings.

Also, I will also begin to reference Devotees and Proponents viewpoints on Moreno's site. Multiple links are being given to Sai Antagonistic sites, I see no reason why I can't reference Moreno's points under that section as well. Thaumaturgic 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the prominent follower Jorgen Trygved admitted this on Danish national TV. Andries 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries "thinking" someone said something is not factual. You need to have references. Wikipedia is not based on heresay. I am removing the comment until you can substantiate the claim with references. Thaumaturgic 16:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

European Comission Reference Incomplete

Regarding the reference: The European Commission answered a question of a member of the European Parliament about the accusations of sexual abuse of childeren on October 1, 2001. This incident happened 4 years ago and nothing resulted from it. To maintain factual accuracy, the result to the Parliament question needs to be stated. Thaumaturgic 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rick Ross has a website that lists critical articles about this person, but note that a disclaimer on Ross' website states that (my emphasis):

The information within The Rick A. Ross Institute archives has been collected to offer the public a resource concerning groups called "cults," controversial organizations and movements. However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy.[3]

So, unless a direct mention from Ross that "accuse him of being a cult leader who uses mind control, and propaganda and who has created a personality cult.", that addition is not factually accurate and needs to be removed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries keeps trying to add the comment about SSB "regularly taking down the pants of young men" and giving them oilings. Where are the references for this comment? The Netherlands Exbaba site only list four people using a real name who claimed to be oiled. Three of the people said that SSB simply oiled them and did not touch them sexually or ask them to do anything sexual. This hardly makes the case that SSB "regularly takes down the the pants of young men" and oils them. Where are the references and testimonies? Thaumaturgic 03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is widely accepted. Even Gerald Joe Moreno wrote that he received such a treatment. Andries 07:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jed Geyerhahn

Please do not present Moreno's conclusion as fact. thanks. 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not present Andries conclusion as a fact either. Thanks. Thaumaturgic 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did I do that in the case of Jed Geyerhahn? Andries 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, Jed Geyerhahn contradicted himself. Whether you want to accept this undisputed fact or not is your choice. Jed Geyerhahn, in his letter to Lane, said he received 4 interviews on his second trip when he 16 years old. On the Seduced transcript, Jed Geyerhahn said he received 4 interviews on his first trip when he was 15 years old. Jed Geyerhahn also contradicted himself as to whether Sathya Sai Baba applied vibuthi or oil on him and couldn't make up his mind whether this happened in his third or fourth interview. These are contridictions that anyone can verify. They are not dependent on Moreno's article or point of view. Thaumaturgic 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I will try to re-read it but I found Moreno's article on the subject unconvincing. Andries 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. When you iron out the contradictions, publish them here. Thaumaturgic 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of referenced links

Andries is beginning to add more content to antagonist's views against Sathya Sai Baba (making the Critics viewpoints even longer) and is adding multiple links that go directly to his website, that he is the webmaster to (that he now claims he is not). I think we need to discuss how these referenced links can and cannot be used and how Andries is trying to direct more traffic to his website. Thaumaturgic 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I did exactly what User:Jossifresco requested me to do, that is providing references for assertions, as also recommended/prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia:references. I am willing to reference assertions to satguru website instead of exbaba if my involvement in exbaba is the problem. There is no guideline that deals with what you consider "spamming" ,as far as I am aware. Andries 11:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mention my name, then I have to clarify what I meant:

Read the wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where it is stated:

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Using online sources

1. Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. (you can also include email messages in this category)
2. A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website
3. Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

It seems that several of the references in this article fall outside of the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. the I would suggest to all contributors, new and experiencedm to read that guideline in detail. You have there the collective wisdom of many editors that have created and sustained Wikipedia since its inception. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Jossi, you wrote "It seems that several of the references in this article fall outside of the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources.". Can you specify which fall outside the guidelines? Please take into account that several references are made to homepages, but detailing contents by the media. Also, Robert Priddy and Brian Steel wrote books that were published on SSB that they now refute on their homepage. It would be strange if I could use their previous books as a reference but not their homepage in which they refute their own books. I cannot find inappropriate references that I inserted. Andries 11:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the guidelines. You can describe their books and their retraction of these books in the articles about these persons. That is the only allowed use of personal websites.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please also take note that the internet is considered by a scholarly source (Alexandra Nagel) to be main information source for the controversy. She wrote "Since the publication of a document titled The Findings, March 2000, quite a few devotees of Sri Sathya Sai Baba have become ex-devotees. The accusations against the Indian guru are enormous: deceit, fraud, murder, undesired sexual intimacies with men, even minors. Prior to The Findings, and afterwards, the Internet has been the primary communication vehicle. " and in the Telegraph the journalist Mick Brown wrote "Among the most remarkable facets of this controversy has been the role of the internet. Even 10 years ago, it is doubtful whether the allegations against Sai Baba would have spread so far and so fast. In a discourse in October 1999, Sai Baba instructed devotees that 'Swami has nothing to do with internet [sic]. Not only now, even in future [sic] also. You should not indulge in such wrong activities.' But in the realms of cyberspace the accusations, the justifications and the denials continue to multiply. Alongside the lurid accounts of abuse, there are accounts of miracles, healings and calls to faith." Andries 17:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We have to accept the fact that anyone can write anything they want on a personal website, presenting whatever narratives they want, and without checks and balance for verifiability. A website today can be put online at $0 cost. This is excellent for democracy and free-speech, but these irrefutable facts means that personal websites of such kind have to be taken cum grano salis and can only be used on Wikipedia with a very substantial disclaimer, if at all. An example: "On a personal website designed to raise criticism of ABC, Mr. XYZ makes exceptional claims against person ABC that have not been corroborated by independent sources". In addition, these sources should not be given predominance in a biographical article, but just a small mention. The use of the Internet to spread rumors, and raise criticism is well known, but that does not make these rumors and allegations any more truthful. On the contrary. That is why we have Wikipedia:Verifiability as a guideline. These guidelines were designed specifically to deal with controversial issues that attemtp to use self-published personal websites as substance for inclusion. I urge all editors to carefully read the non-negotiable principle of Verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Favorable books about SSB were also published without cost as if they were nothing. Can you please specify what sources, what book titles for this subject can be used instead of making unconstructive remarks about what sources cannot be used? Please note that recent scholarly articles refer to Steel's and Priddy's homepages. And I think that it contradicts common sense that I can use their previous books here as a reference, but not their homepages on which they reject their own previous books ! Andries 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this subject to make a suggestion on what sources to use. What I am pointing out is the numerous problems with this article as it pertain to sources that are, according to guidelines, unreliable and not allowable to support assertions made in the article. Concerning the people you refer to, read the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. You can describe their books and their retraction of these books in the articles about these persons, but not on other articles such as this onw. That is the only allowed use of personal websites. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.'
• Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

• The guideline states "Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website". Steel and Priddy are considered experts in their field by Alexandra Nagel who wrote recent scholarly articles about SSB. Again, I want to state that strict adherence to the rules in this particular case where the authors refute on their homepages their previous published works contradict common sense. Andries 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

These persons are arguably not "known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Alexandra Nagel, can you please show where she asserts that these people are "known professional journalists or researchers"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

They are recognized and cited in scholarly articles about SSB, so they are acknowleged researchers on the subject of SSB. Alexandra cites them very favorably. Andries 23:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Is she not an ex-member of Sai Baba as well? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are these "scholarly articles"? I cannot see many of these in the reference section. If they are, these relate to the "miracles" controversy only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, she is an ex-member, but that is from the perspective of Wikipedia somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant for Wikipedia is that she managed to get her article about SSB published in an academic magazine about religious movements. Andries 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the editors of Wikipedia cares much about references for the sections that do not deal with the controversy. Andries 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are no scholarly articles in which these allegations are described, besides ex-members testimonies and one ex-member scholar that published one article on a University Magazine? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

re-indent. I am not aware of an extensive scholarly treatment of the accusations published in an academic magazine about religious movements other than the article by Alexandra Nagel. I am not aware of any recent scholarly article on SSB or affiliated movements published in a academic magazine, except, may be, the short treatment by Kranenborg in 2001 Dutch language in his encyclopedia of neo Hindu movements in the Netherlands. I am not aware of any scholarly article that refutes or belittles the recent accusations. Andries 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra Nagel has openly professed being against Sathya Sai Baba. She holds an openly negative view about him. She simply wrote some articles, about Sathya Sai Baba, for some college class assignments, and Andries keeps trying to pass off her homework as "scholarly", etc. Alexandra Nagel is not an expert or authority on cults, religions, philosophy or gurus. She has no known credentials in any of these fields. Andries keeps citing Alexandra Nagel because they are good friends and he is, in my opinion, trying to mislead others about her neutrality. Thaumaturgic 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are no scholarly articles on the subject of the allegations besides those made by critical ex-followers, this fact needs to be stated prominently in the article for NPOV. It also means that the allegations stories need to be relegated to one section under a disclaimer about the sources used. Otherwise is highly misleading for readers. Note that this is for me a completely new subject. In reading the article the impression I got is that there is substantial research by scholars on the subject of these allegations, when the opposite seems to be the truth. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of scholarly study by never-followers on the subject of miracles, e.g. by Beyerstein and Erlendur Haraldsson, and ex-member Premanand, and yes there is also quite a lot of investigative journalism by The Times, the BBC and Danish Radio on the sexual abuse allegations. Of course, the source of the sexual abuse allegations are only ex-members. But please note that sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove. Andries 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please mention one scholarly article that belittles or refutes the allegations. Andries 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Next time I go to the University library in my neighborhood, I will see I can find any books on the subject. For now I am abandoning this discussion, as I have other articles that I need to take care of. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

She did not only write articles as university assignment (yes, she did that too), but also as an academic article and published by the Free university of Amsterdam. Andries 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Noooo! yet another Dutch student? Where do you find these, Andries :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Her two updated articles A guru Accused and Sai Baba Shiva Shakti were written in English language and contain more or less the same, but updated information as her older 1994 Dutch article. Her article For and against SSB on the internet contains mostly new information. Andries 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with Nagel's articles. Moreno has pointed out some of them. One of her errors is when she calls Sathya Sai Baba a "homo-pedophile". As an educated person, she should know that "pedophilia" involves children twelve years of age or younger. Where is the proof that Sathya Sai Baba molested any child twelve years of age or younger? Why does Nagel call Sathya Sai Baba a "pedophile"? Nagel supposedly thoroughly researched Premanand's claims regarding the betrayal article. Nagel attributed the betrayal article to a Sai student. Turns out that Premanand said it was not a Sai student, but a parent to a student. The authorship to the betrayal article was never researched by Nagel. Moreno is the one who got the truth of the matter. The errors go on and on. She is not neutral and just because she had an article published by the Free University of Amsterdam does not make her an authority or expert. Thaumaturgic 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that a parent had written the betrayal letter to Premanand. Andries 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the betrayal letter to Premanand Betrayal by Sai Baba Andries 01:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Moreno may be right in the case of the betrayal letter, but in other cases he is so completely wrong and misguided that it is embarassing and entertaining at the same time. Andries 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, that shows how well you and Nagel researched the betrayal article. Nagel simply accepted the betrayal article at face value. Despite her "research", she didn't even care to investigate it. It was Moreno's challenges that evoked the response from Premanand (that it was not written by a sai student, but by a parent). Thank you for acknowledging that you didn't know and you didn't care to investigate it. Saying Moreno is "wrong and misguided", when you cannot provides examples, is an ad hominem attack. Thaumaturgic 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

And Thaumaturgic only touched the surface. Premanand CHANGED his story after 5 years (Reference)

"Premanand's recently divulged (after a five year gap) that the anonymous letter was written by a parent and not by a Sai Student. Everyone was mislead with this information. For the past five years, not even one Anti-Sai Activist ever attributed this letter to a parent of a Sai Student. It was always attributed directly to a Sai Student. This claim was made by Alexandra Nagel on the ExBaba site, Hari Sampath, the contributors to Wikipedia and SaiGuru.net. Even Premanand attributed the letter to a Sai Student (which is why everyone believed it came from a Sai Student). Premanand said, "As no reply has been received we have to presume that the experiences of the student is correct which we are publishing 'Betrayal by Sai Baba'...We have been getting several letters from your students about the sexual abuse of the students. I am sending herewith one letter so that after going through the same you inform me whether what is stated in the article is true or not."

Premanand changed the story, about the origins to the letter, five years AFTER the fact. This casts a dark shadow over Premanand's credibility and the integrity to the alleged account.

SSS108 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

3RR warning

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Internet Petiton

Can we remove the internet petition out off the article? This seems to me like a detail in the whole controversy. Andries 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so Andries. The numerous problems with the petition form a huge part to Moreno's case about the dishonesty of Sai Antagonists. Why do you want to remove it after you just added more information to it? Is it because I added a link to Moreno's page about the many problems with the petition? Thaumaturgic 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Because an internet petition is from an encyclopedic view not notable, I think. I would like outsiders to comment on this. Andries 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I added information to petition controversy was because the article started talking about a petition without any introduction or background information, so that must have been unintelligible for the average reader. Andries 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If it is not "notable", then why did you add more information to it? Sai Antagonists have referenced the petition over and over on their sites. It might not be "notable" for you, however, it is notable for "Devotees and Proponents". That's why it's listed under that section. Thaumaturgic 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)#

In wikipedia we generally include information that readers may find notable or interesting, and I doubt whether readers find this notable or interesting. To me, it seems like a minor point in the whole intense controversy regarding SSB, especially taking into account that several governments are involved. Andries 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, readers will not find the skeptics and opponents section "notable and interesting". So can I delete it? It is a matter of personal opinion what is "notable and interesting". I think Moreno made a very strong case against the petition, and you are afraid of others seeing his page. If the petition is just a triviality, as you imply, why do Sai Antagonists reference the link repeatedly (as you do on your own site as well)? Thaumaturgic 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that there is one reader who will find the section of skeptic and opponents not notable and interesting. The internet petition is not notable for outsiders, I think. It is however important and notable for people like me who were intensely involved with SSB and suffered from the consequences. Andries 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a minor issue in the article though because it occupies only two sentences, so I will not keep nagging. Andries 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It might take "only two sentences" on the Wikipedia Article, nevertheless it takes up a WHOLE lot more space on my page about it (Reference).

SSS108 02:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Reputable sources

Adries said: there is also quite a lot of investigative journalism by The Times, the BBC and Danish Radio on the sexual abuse allegations. I would then suggest to stick to these sources only, as specified by Wikipedia guidelines. Ex-members allegations can be summarized and placed under a disclaimer about their source. Any other sources from books and scholars are also welcome.

I found two books in the library: Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe in which an article by Mikael Rothstein discusses the negative impact of the social protest of ex-members in Denmark after a documentary about Sai Baba was aired there, and "Hinduism and Modernity" in which a generic discussion of alegations against gurus is made by the author (and in which Sai Baba has a small mention). I found nothing else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the book title by Rothstein of which I was not aware. I have no problem sticking to scholarly articles and articles in the reputable media, as long as they are not "rebutted" by Gerald Joe Moreno's hompepage that is cited by no reputable scholarly source or favorable quoted by reputable media . If Moreno's homepage is allowed then I think it is reasonable that internet writings of ex-members are allowed here too. By the way, the New York Times that is considered a reputable source by Wikipedia made the blunder of writing that SSB is "Famous for seldom saying much in public even to his followers" (Here are his public discourses until 1997) Andries 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

(the book is not by Rothstein, The article is. The book was edited by James Richardson.)

The rebuttals to allegations by former members can be summarized below the summary of the allegations made by former members. Note that most, if not all, of these former members (as well as current members) are non-notable and and such their names are irrelevant for the purpose of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines say that opinions have to be attributed which contradict what you assert or do you want me to do that in footnotes? Andries 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, what should be clearly stated in the article is that many of these media articles since the year 2000 are the result of internet dynamics and only corroborate and repeat what had been stated on the internet. Andries 17:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You can only say that if a notable source says so. Otherwise is WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are several notable sources that say so that are already listed on the talk page (Brown and Nagel) and besides it is the rule, not the exception that the internet is a dominant source of information about a certain religious movement. (sources Barrett the New Believers and James R. Lewis' Cults in America) Andries 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines speak of attributions of notable/reputable sources. Non-notable sources such as the opinions of non-notable individuals are not suitable for inclusion even if attributed. The internet may be a dominat source on a subject, but that does not make these sources any more notable. Don't confuse a societal phenomenon as the Internet with notable sources. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Either you, or I mix things up. I thought that opinions of small minorities are not suitable for inclusion. If an opinion is held by more than a small by a minority then it can be mentioned if attritubed to one of its proponents even if this person not well known. That is what I have been trying to do. Andries 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell by reading the sources provided, the viewpoint is still of a small minority of ex followers. The discussion about allegations of such kind can be (and probably are) discussed in the ex-followers websites and the ample rebuttals can be (and probably are) discussed on the proponents website. But this is an biaogrpahy in an encyclopedia, not an ex-follower's website, neither a proponent's one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The viewpoint of what you mistakenly call this "small minority of ex-followers" was also echoed by the media. Andries 06:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The fact that the media described a number of allegations made by a small number of people is not "echoing" these allegations just reporting on them, and does not make it more than what it is. So I stand by my argument based on Wikipedia guidelines, that non-notable sources need to be summarized and preempted by a disclaimer about their origin, names of non-notable people deleted (both anti and pro), and that the article sticks to reputable sources only. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, if you really believe such nonsense that the media just reported on them and was not echoing the allegations then I suggest you read for example the article at salon.com by Michelle Goldberg, available online. Is this just reporting on the allegations or shows this article a clear sympathy to the former members? Andries 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article and it is indeed disturbing, but I do not think that you can say that she is echoing anything. She is a reporter and she is reporting on a possible scandal, otherwise it is not newsworthy, is it?. She is only reporting on things that others say. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

re-indenting Reply to Jossi about notable individuals. With regards to the individuals mentioned here, everybody in this article, with the exception of Gerald Joe Moreno has been mentioned by the media, by scholars, or by the hagiographical literature. I think that everybody who is mentioned in this article is notable with regards to SSB. Andries 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? Is Glen Meloy, notable? Just by being an ex-follower people become notable? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Meloy is notable with regards to SSB. If we can only mention people here that are notable per se then we cannot even mention SSB's parents. Andries 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SSB parents are notable. Meloy is certainly not. If that was the case, any critic of any subject automatically would become "notable" by the simple fact that they are critics. Your interpretation of what is notable is obviously incorrect. Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, please learn the differences between Primary and secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, and how do you know that Meloy is not a notable critic? I heard that he was one of the main persons behind the critical pivotal India Today cover story about SSB. He was according to an article by Alexandra Nagel (secondary source) one of the main factors behind the expose and managed an e-mailing lists of with hundreds of recipients about the matter. I never meant to say that any critic of SSB is notable. In memoriam Glen Meloy Andries 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Glen Meloy also blatantly lied about Sathya Sai Baba. On his letter, on the ExBaba site, entitled, "Sathya Sai Baba's 'Inappropriate Sexual Bhavior' Confirmed by U.S. Officialdom", Glen Meloy tried to mislead everyone into thinking that SSB's alleged "inappropriate sexual behavior" was "confirmed" by the US State Department. However, if one reads the original US State Deptartment warning, it specifically stated the reports of "inappropriate sexual behavior" were "UNconfirmed" [4]. Glen Meloy related this untruth publicly and obviously swayed some with it. Notice how all these untruths keep surfacing in relation to Anti-Sai Activists?

SSS108 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

None of these notable individuals are experts or authorities on Sathya Sai Baba. They have taken their agenda to the media and were successful in getting misleading articles published against Sathya Sai Baba. None of these notable individuals have been successful in a court of law. Even the victims refuse to file court cases. Moreno's site is the main voice for devotees and proponents. All the devotees I have personally spoken to agree with Moreno. Moreno's articles rebut notable individuals who published their viewpoints in the media. Andries already conceded that the media he cited were favorably disposed towards Sai Antagonists. Therefore, these biased media sources deserve to have their bias exposed. It appears Andries wants to suppress Moreno's site and viewpoints. Thaumaturgic 02:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding the Salon Article, it was written in 2001 and if Michelle Goldberg had the information that is available now, the article would have been written very differently! She discussed the accusations made in The Findings and by Said Khorramshahgol, Hans de Kraker, Jed Geyerhahn and "Neptune". Obviously, Goldberg was unaware of Khorramshahgol's very disturbing online behavior. Jed Geyerhahn is the one whose testimonies completely and utterly contradict each other (even Andries cannot refute them). "Neptune" is an anonymous person who claimed SSB literally transformed his genitals. The Findings is filled with contradictory, misleading and inaccurate information. Goldberg did NOT personally talk to Hans De Kraker. She took his testimony from another source. Also, the "moaning" reference was not made in Hans original testimony. Unesco (which was initially praised by Anti-Sai Activists) is now being ATTACKED by them. As one can see, there is another side to these stories. It is hardly as simple as Andries & Co want it to appear. Furthermore, Goldberg PERSONALLY wrote to Anti-Sai Activists and said, "I apologize for not having the time to pursue every angle of the story, but I think the final piece (more than 2000 words longer than it was originally assigned) will bring much attention to your struggle. Thanks again for all your help". Obviously, she was influenced by Anti-Sai Activists.

SSS108 16:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Jossie, how would that work? The Sathya Sai Organization has refused to comment on these allegations. Therefore, the only "notable" sources are ones that are against Sathya Sai Baba. Since devotees and proponents would not be considered "notable", then this would give the perception that there are no contrary viewpoints or articles that rebut these "notable" sources. Thaumaturgic 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries already stated earlier that his "media" sources were sympathetic to the Sai Antagonistic viewpoint. Therefore, by Andries own confession, they are biased. Andries said, "In Wikipedia we give majority point of views majority space. Salon.com and the BBC favorably and extensively cited critics and ex-followers, so this is a strong indication that they agree with the ex-follower point of view. Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers." Moreno has every reason to "rebut" these articles, many of which he already has. Andries has taken great liberty to modify the "Devotees and Proponents" section and I see no reason why a reference to a rebuttal can be made if it exists. Again, Alexandra Nagel and other "scholars" are not experts or authorities on Sathya Sai Baba. They are simply expressing their own opinions. It doesn't matter if Moreno's site has been cited by the media or not. If he can rationally rebut the article, then his point of view can be mentioned in relation to the "Devotees and Proponents" point of view. Thaumaturgic 19:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Pending Tasks

Regarding the pending tasks, I just wanted to say a few things. If the Unesco withdrawal is mentioned, then it needs to be stated that Sai Antagonists were behind the withdrawal (which is documented on Andrie's site against Sathya Sai Baba). Also, Sai Antagonists are currently attacking Unesco and since they were the one's who influenced the Unesco withdrawal, this fact also needs to be stated. Regarding the Love Is My Form book, it is an unofficial biography. There are other unofficial biographies. If this article allows the information from one unofficial biography, then it must allow the information from other unofficial biographies. Would this be appropriate? If Haraldsson's content is referenced, then the favorable information from him must also be summarized. Not just what argues against Sathya Sai Baba. Thaumaturgic 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I do not know who was behind the UNESCO withdrawal because this happened when I was still a follower, though I believe that the exbaba website is right that SSB antagonists influenced UNESCO's decision. Andries 18:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• The book Love is My Form (that I have not read) is, I heard, the best researched biography on SSB and used by Alexandera Nagel for her articles. The offical "biography" by Kasturi and several unofficial biographies are hagiographies and not very useful for providing facts in this article. Andries 18:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Applying the principles of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV both are sources that can be used in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that the spirit of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia prescribe that hagiographies are a good source for a biography unless Wikipedia wants its editors to abandon common sense when editing. Andries

If in an hagiography it says that XYZ was married to ABX in 1945, that is good info and can be used. You would not dismiss any published source if it contains useful biographical material, would you? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would say, yes, but in this case even the birth year and the years that SSB went to school are likely to be fabrications to enhance the mythology around SSB. Andries 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But Andries, as editors we cannot make these value judgements. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, and no, we have to select good sources and selecting good sources is done by the editors and discussed here on the talk page. Andries 23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really believe that you can make an unbiased decision about what is and what is not a good source? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that I am one of the best read experts on this subject in the whole of Wikipedia. I may be too suspicious about certain hagiographical material, but what can you expect if even his birth year, gender, and years at school turned out to be doubtful at best? Andries 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that some of your opposers in this dispute, seem to be equally or better informed than you, if one is to judge by what they write here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I did not know that Andries is the webmaster of a website critical of the subject of this article. As such, Andries needs to be extra careful with his edits in this article. From WP:NOR:

I am not the webmaster of a critical website of this article and have never been the de facto webmaster. Andries 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence points to the contrary, my warning remain as stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I have insider knowledge, but please try to be specific instead of extensively quoting the guidelines of which I am very much aware. Where did I use inside knowledge in the article? I have seen other editors (user:Pachiaamos) using expert knowledge in this article or related articles, such as mentioning the name "Rahm" before the BBC documentary reaveled it. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

WP:NOR, Andries is not telling the truth. I have it fully documented (Reference). I could have proved that Andries claimed he was the webmaster for the past 3 YEARS if he had not recently blocked his site from Archive.org. The same time Thaumaturgic tried to attibute the site to him, the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site was blocked from Archive.org. Now, Andries is trying to convince everyone he is not the webmaster and he is simply a "contact" for the site. I don't buy it. Reinier's name NEVER appeared on that site. Now it does. For 6 MONTHS, I pointed out (on my page about Andries Reference), that he was the webmaster for the exbaba site. For 6 MONTHS, Andries REFUSED to change the webmaster information. Only when this discussion shifted to Andries' bias, did he change the information on the exbaba site. At the same time, blocked his site from Archive.org. Gee, what did he have to hide? I know.

SSS108 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not deny that exbaba stated that I was the webmaster. I do not know if why and how this was blocked from archive.org because I am not involved in such technical matters, as I am not the webmaster. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I also forgot to mention that on this SAME discussion page, Kazlev made reference to Andries webmaster status on the hetnet.nl/~exbaba site and Andries did NOT refute it (Neutrality Disputed).

btw Willmcw, I've been informed that Andries is the "news, webmaster and contact" for the largest Anti-Sai Baba Site on the internet, hetnet.nl/~exbaba If this is true, letting him determine or influence policy and content on a page on Sai Baba is like letting a creationist determine how a wiki page on Darwinism should read! I checked the history of the article, and have found repeated entries by Andries. This means that the neutrality of this article is seriously in doubt. I'm sure that Andries is an excellent Wikipedian in all other respects, but here we have a very clear POV conflict (i.e. can one write from an NPOV perspective about something that one feels so strongly, passionately, and onesidely a POV? ) Compare the page on Sai Baba with the wiki page on the equally controversial guru Da Free John which is much more positive towards him M Alan Kazlev 02:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Alan, I really tried to do my best not to make this not into an expose article and to present all sides of the story. Here is my personal story if you are interested. [4] Andries 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

SSS108 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As usual, your writings are one-sided and partisan. May be you should quote Alan Kazlev's website in which he writes about me, you, and this Wikipedia article that supercedes your above quote. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, in this section Moreno was discussing your webmaster status on the Netherlands Exbaba site. He was not talking about your neutrality. In the quoted section, you did not refute Alan Kazlev's reference to being the webmaster to the Netherlands Exbaba site. That was the reason for the quote. You are trying to change the context. Since you brought it up, I disagree with Alan Kazlev. You are not neutral. Everything points to your bias. Thaumaturgic 21:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted it to go on the record that Andries is now claiming that he is the "main representative, supervisor and contact" for the Netherlands Exbaba site (which happens to the largest site that opposes Sathya Sai Baba on the world wide web). Andries originally claimed, for years, that he was the "Webmaster, News and Contact" for the Exbaba site. Then Andries claimed he was only a "Contact" for the Exbaba site. Now, however, Andries is claiming that he is the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the Exbaba site. Notice how Andries is demoting and promoting himself arbitrarily? Thaumaturgic 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The role of expert editors

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

I would also refer editors to this, from WP:NPOV

Fairness and sympathetic tone

If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

---

Media articles and op-eds

It would be good if when we mention media articles as sources, if we can specify if these are op-eds, or actual reporting by the media outlet. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that any op-eds are used as a source in this article. Andries 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The article in Salon.com reads very much like one. Care to send a message to Salon.com and ask? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if they confirm in an e-mail to me that it was an op-ed (which I do not believe it is) then we cannot write this in the article because an e-mail is not considered a reliable reference, according to the standards that your quote here extensively. So I do not see the point in sending an e-mail to salon.com. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tangentially related

Despite being asked to provide some input to the discussion here, I didn't manage to allocate time to this task. But I can provide a link to new proposed policy page about Biographies of living persons, a fallout of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (and some more similiar cases). Note that there are two different drafts:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp

Additional discussions can be found on the wikiEN-l archives.

Not only you have a look there for guidance here, perhaps you may also want to provide the difficulties exeprienced here, as an input to the policy drafting.

Pjacobi 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I amended the latter proposed version to reflect that questioning of extraordinary claims that may be perceived as defamatory by this person or his or her followers do not have to be sourced to highly credible sources, but that normal standards apply then. Andries 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I will discuss your edit on that temp page, but note that you have an incorrect understanding of what libel is. Read Wikipedia:Libel.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a seperate section about SSB's miracles

SSB's is the most prolific miracle worker of the 20th century and I think his miracles that have been investigated (by e.g. Haraldsson, Beyerstein and Premanand) from various angles deserve a separate section, including positive and critical views. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How many sections do you need to promote your point of view, Andries? Since we cannot go on citing numerous people who claim to have experienced healings, miracles and manifestations directly, the section you propose would be dominated with your point of view. Thaumaturgic 21:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The English translation of the original Dutch language Trouw article in the History section is not accurate. I will try to get this corrected. Andries 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The internet battles between followers and former followers, though they are clearly better informed than others (i.e. the media and academics of new religious movements), should be constrained here, because they are endless. I don't know how unfortunately. For example Gerald Joe Moreno asserts on his homepage that there are fundamentalist Christians against SSB (with several errors) and this is written in the article then this gives me the right to give a somewhat opposing view on this by Serguei Badaev. What Moreno basically writes, presented as his new unique discovery, though hidden by deceitful anti-SSB activists is that there is something like a Christian countercult movement Andries 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Moreno responded to that page by Serguei Badaev. Also, Serguei Badaev's article does not refute Moreno's page about the Christian and Atheist movements against Sathya Sai Baba. What are the errors on Moreno's page? Thaumaturgic 21:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please STOP linking to Moreno's defamatory webpages. I will ask whether linking to highly defamatory webpages are allowed on the talk page in Wikipedia. Errors, by Moreno are for example he asserts that Reinier van der Sandt is a fundamentalist Christian because Simonis writes that van der Sandt left the group. Reinier is not a fundamentalist Christian. Of course Simonis has reason to assume that Reinier is an ex, but the reason I think Reinier wrote that letter was because of the involvement of a Dutch priest, Bertus van Schaik, now an ex, in the SSB movement. Andries 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Andries, I think your pages are highly defamatory against Sathya Sai Baba. Should we remove them as well? "Defamation" is in the eye of the beholder. Funny how you think you are justified in linking to Badaev's article, but you consider the response "defamatory". I think you are afraid of letting people see the behavior and dishonesty of your fellow Sai Antagonists. If the material is truthful, it is not defamatory. Moreno already discussed this issue with me and you are wrong again. The reason Moreno contended that Reinier is a fundamentalist Christian is because Reinier took a 30 day course from settingcaptivesfree.com to break himself from some sort of addiction. Their statement of faith requires them to take a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. Also, Reinier made several comments on how a majority of Christians don't understand their scriptures, implying he did. He also authored two articles against Sathya Sai Baba: "Sai Baba is detrimental to the gospel of Jesus Christ" & "Second letter to Cardinal Simonis" Or one can view the shocking information about Reinier: You have not refuted this one bit. Thaumaturgic 23:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Critics of SSB are not public figures and scrutinizing their private lives and psychological problems is inappropriate and serves no useful purpose. Besides many people join charismatic groups because they have some psychological problems or unfulfilled psychological needs (according to the psychiater Marc Galanter). Having some psychological problems at some time in their lives is not enough reason to discount the critics' testimonies. Can you imagine that before being able to serve as a testimony in court you are disqualified because you had some psychological problems at some time in your life. This is just one of many cases where Moreno writings lack empathy and common sense. Andries 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Andries, if critics are not "public figures", then why are you trying to make the case that they are "notable individuals" who have been cited by the media?

What you fail to see and tell everyone, Andries, is that Anti-Sai Activists have targeted not only SSB and the SSO, they have also targeted high ranking devotees and anyone seen as being publicly supportive of SSB. For example, Glen Meloy attacked Dr. Wayne Dyer simply because Dyer recommended SSB's books. Barry Pittard attacked Rabbi David Zeller simply because he spoke at Sai Interfaith Conferences at Prashanti Nilayam. Anti-Sais have attacked me, SaiOnline, Radiosai, Goldstein, Kalam, Kasturi, Alwe, Tigrett, Ramanathan, Sullivan, Krystal, Hislop, Shah, Jogarao, Jagadeeshan, Bozzani, Meyer and many others. You just shot yourself in the foot. You apply one standard against Pro-Sai Activists and exempt yourself from that SAME standard. Where is the "empathy and common sense" that Anti-Sais have for Sathya Sai Baba, devotees and proponents?

I have shown, with documentation, that Anti-Sai Activists have lied about Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, they are untrustworthy and the general public should be made aware of this fact. Amusing how you are saying that character and online behavior do not count. They do, and I will hold you and your Anti-Sai banditeers accountable for your character and online behavior.

SSS108 23:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some high ranking prominent followers of SSB have been criticized by former followers because of their refusal to investigate the very serious charges against SSB and their unquestioning continuing promotion of SSB. That is very different from writing or suggesting, as you do of me, that I am a hash user. The latter is completely unrelated to the SSB controversy and can hence be classified as an ad hominem attack. And an untrue one too, because it was just a copy of my Wikipedia user page that was automatically copied on a regular basis. Andries 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another mistake by Moreno on that webpage "American Family Foundation (a radical, fundamentalist Christian site). " Andries 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Andries, you really need to do some basic research before you claim that the AFA is NOT a radical, Fundamentalist Christian site. They are. Take a look at their homepage: ([5]). They have been accused of Anti-Semitism ([6]). They have waged some of the MOST hateful, vindictive, vocal and unremitting Anti-Gay campaigns in the USA: ([7]). The AFA is well known for their extremist reactions to alcohol, gambling, drugs, abortion and just about every other taboo you can think of. They support Creationism and are self-professed conservatives. Another example of your poor research.

Also, I realized the misunderstanding. The word "Foundation" was typed instead of "Assocation". However, if Andries had clicked the link, he would have seen it goes to the AFA, not the AFF. I will correct the word shortly. Here is the google cache, so no one will say I changed the link: ([8])

SSS108 00:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Summarize and merge

There is very similar information in section "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" and Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. There is a need to summarize the section and merge new material to that article and avoid duplication. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jossie, you and I know that Andries is not going to summarize that section. Someone else is going to have to do it for him.

SSS108 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia articles normally follow scholarly articles and media articles from reputable sources about a subject. These articles about SSB have a big section about the controversial aspects about SSB. If you want to deviate from those articles then you have to give very good reasons for that. Andries 00:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As you already conceded, your so called "scholarly articles and media articles" are biased. You already admitted that they were predisposed to the Anti-Sai point of view. No one is asking you to deviate from anything. You were asked to summarize the Anti-Sai point of view because the material you are citing is redundant and has already been explained under Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

SSS108 04:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings, even I admit that the current size of the controversy/allegations/opposition section is disproportional even for a guru that is both in scholarly literature and in mainstream media extremely controversial. Andries 14:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Do you Andries? You have already made your case against SSB on the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba section. Therefore you need to summarize your Anti-Sai viewpoint on the main page. You already discussed your alleged "scholarly literature" and biased "mainstream media" in that section as well. Your point of view is fully expressed under the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba section. Therefore, you need to summarize it on the main page.

SSS108 19:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

there should be one article and not two. and should not shvoe citiccism off to anothter page. Tiksustoo 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Whereas it has become common for some class of articles, to have separate "Criticism" articles, this still smells of POV fork and should be re-merged if at all possible. --Pjacobi 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

... unless the articles become too big, in which cases an article split is OK, providing that there is a summary of the split article in the main article. That is the case in this situation. You may want to read the guideline: Content forking: Article spinouts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is always better to make spin off articles per subject not per POV. The miracles by and attributed to Sathya Sai Baba could be a good spin off article. Andries 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both these can be considered POV or subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles criticism of Sathya Sai Baba or Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba could very well be Wikipedia:POV forks. An article Miracles by and attributed to Sathya Sai Baba is very unlikely to be a POV fork. Andries 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Was not you the one that started that article? [9] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a time ago and at the moment I have doubts whether I made a good decision then. Andries 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is decided (merging or deleting Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba), please do not remove any references again from this article. Wikipedia policy says that references are an essential part of an article and it took me a lot of time to collect them. Please restore references if you removed them accidentally. Andries 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If the allegations section is going to be merged with the main page, then I have no choice but to expand the "Devotees and Proponents" section. Thaumaturgic 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

David Bailey is a bisexual who has with his wife in their home propositioned men outside it. Tal Brooke described an encounter with a man at the ashram as 'a blond blue eyed angel walked into the room... our eyes met'. Brooke was paid by Bangalore Christians to attack Baba. After 19 months as a vegetarian, his first action was to buy a steak. The attackers of Baba are a combination of a. serially gay men expelled from the ashram for imposing their sexuality on others, b. the bribed, and c. disinformation specialists trained by intelligence agencies. Baba has over 100 million followers, most of whom are vegetarian or vegan. Thus Baba's followers threaten capital cartels around the world invested in slaughterhouse products, lumber, mining, fishing, vivisection, etc.

If Wikipedia wants to persist in its slanderous campaign, there are Hindus around the world who will boycott the site. I am writing this as someone who has coordinated successful boycotts which have been reported on the CBC, Australian Broadcasting, NPR, BBC, and in the pages of the Wall St Journal, Christian Science Monitor, and thousands of other media.

Baba has said 'diamonds shine more brightly foiled by black velvet' about such attacks. But His followers are not as advanced and many of them will act. Jan 8, 2006 S Lehman

About Links

I am wondering why Andries is trying to include Dutch links in this article? If this Wikipedia article is written in English, why are there dutch links? This link is duplicated twice under reference 5 and 12. Also, the link Sai Baba's miracles, and overview is a odd reference. None of the "contents" links work on that page. The only link that works is the one that goes back to Andries Sai Antagonistic Site. Also, the link that connects to Robert Priddy's page about his diamond ring is not even discussed in the paragraph that uses it as a reference. It looks like Andries is trying to promote his Sai Antagonistic sites. Thaumaturgic 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to Beyerstein's study does not work very well, but you can still download his study from that webpage and read it offline which is something that I recommend for anybody interested in SSB or in editing this article. 09:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the links do not work at all. "Not very well" is misleading. And why are you including dutch references on this English version? I cannot believe your translations as there are many ways to translate things people said. You clearly oppose Sathya Sai Baba (you are now calling yourself the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest site that opposes Sathya Sai Baba on the internet) and your versions to the translations cannot be trusted to be literal and neutral, in my opinion. Thaumaturgic 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

May be you can ask a Dutch Wikipedian to check my translations if you do not trust me. There are quite a lot of Dutch speaking Wikipedians. The translation of the Trouw article (made by the Dutch-American Ella Evers) is inaccurate, as I had already written here. The reason why I translated the article by Alexandra Nagel that she wrote for the UvA is that I think it is very relevant that the readers of this article know that many long-time well-informed followers, like Wim G.J. van Dijk, know that SSB performs oilings on the genitals of young men. As far as I know it is however exceptional that this is written down in a publication for all the official members. I remember by the way the discussions about what van Dijk wrote when it came it. Andries 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I am making. Can we expect everyone who reads this article to check the translation by asking Dutch Wikipedians? This article is written in English and the references should be in English. If people speak Dutch, they can go to the Dutch article. If you want to cite the reference, you should provide the full article, with its English equivalent about W.G.J. van Dijk. Taking a couple of sentences from a magazine insinuates selective quote mining. Thaumaturgic 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-English language sources are treated here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English The only reason why Nagel did not mention van Dijk in her English language article because he is not important enough from an international perspective. However it is important to write in the article that prominent followers know that that the oilings place. Matthijs van der Meer told Samuel Sandweiss when he was in the Netherlands, as published in the article The truth will prevail...a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment, in Dutch New Age magazine Spiegelbeeld October issue 2000. (I was there too when van der Meer and Sandweiss met in Amsterdam). Andries 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is that SSB apologists who are so extremely skeptical of the testimonies of exes, like myself, simply do not pick up the phone and talk with these exes instead of ferreting on every word by exes written online. My phone nr. is published on line. Why can't you try to be open minded and fair? Many devotees who sincerely wanted to know the truth behind the allegations were given confidential private information. Andries 21:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you try to be open minded and fair?

That's very rich coming from you. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

May be we can add the following Media article India Daily 23 Nov. 2005 Criminal in monk's robes?Andries 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Andries, I see you are once again poorly researching your so-called "Media Article". That article in question is NOT a "media article. It is an ANONYMOUS blog entry. I guess you will begin to cite "Colourz" as a "notable individual" who has been cited in reputable media? Shall we turn Wikipedia into a Blog link resource? We would if you had your way.

There are valid reasons why "SSB apologists" are skeptical of people like you (Reference).

SSS108 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

okay, you are right that this is not a good media article. But you have already made Wikipedia into a blog link resource by extensively quoting anc citing from your homepage that is neither favorably cited by mainstream media, nor by scholars. In fact, your reasoning and and conclusions are rejected by them. In accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV policy we should give your website minority space. Andries 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Governmental measures (or the lack thereof) are for outsiders more important than internet discussions by proponents and critics and they should hence precede these discussions. Andries 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)