Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Regarding Kreydick's Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, others have tried before to get Kreydick's statement from the court but failed, nevertheless I will try get it too from the court [1]. Andries 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno (SSS108) makes links to highly slanderous pages against me. It is fair to point this out, because I basically agree with jossi’s comment under ‘Tone of this Conversation’. However, since I have been attacked heavily here and Wikipedia is chronically unable to remove such texts or block the slanderers once and for all, I feel I do at least have a moral right to refute arguments directed against me, not least also in defense of one who have suffered terribly at the hands of Sai Baba (Alaya Rahm). So here goes:- I gave a link to a Court web page, but never suggested that it contained the text of the court records – I gave the link PRECISELY to show that those records are NOT available on that website! See this once again: "At this time documents imaged or electronically filed are not available via this application.”

The Times reference

The reference provided for the last edit is from Rick Ross' website and does not have any information about the original source. The citation is referred to be from The Times, but The Times archive does not have such article. See: [[2]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freelanceresearch 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you google on the name of the article then it is clear that it used to be available online. Online copies can be found e.g here. [3] Andries 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just go to any decent University Library or major Public Library and you can verify the hard copy version. Or one can write to Dominic Kennedy, c/o The Times, and he will verify it himself. But perhaps Lisa and Joe think he is a blatant liar who pretends he has written this article and that it is only his 'original research' or that he is 'only' a journalist? --84.208.99.96 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindu ritual oiling genitals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes and refs

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

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

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

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

And archiving the talk page seems also needed.

Pjacobi 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

May be the lawsuits should go out of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Shepherd, author of 'Investigating the Sai Baba Movement' Dorchester, 2005. ISBN 0 9525089 3 1 deals there with four main Sai Baba related figures: Shirdi Sai, Upasani Maharaj, Meher baba and Sathya Sai Baba. His publisher states among much else: "His Gurus Rediscovered (1968) was the first book to stress the Sufi background of Shirdi Sai Baba, and also the sequel of Upasani Maharaj. He has also written nine other various works..." These monographs include: Psychology in Science: Towards a Universal Science of Human Progress A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge 1988) Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi & Upasni Maharaj of Sakori From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics (Cambridge) Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an Interdisciplinary Science of Culture The Ressurection of Philosophy (Cambridge) Meaning in Anthropos: Anthropography as an Interdisciplinary Science of Culture (Cambridge) Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One: (Zoroastrianism and the Indian Religions) and Vol. Two: Zoroanstrianism, Ishraqi philosophy, Sufism, Ramakrishna, Tantric Buddhism, Vogelin, and other subjects. Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals Pointed Observations (see also http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Shepherd,%20Kevin) In short Kevin Shepherd has all the marks of being a real 'expert in comparative religion'! Of course, his book is a primary source on the Sathya Sai Baba article. The reason Moreno [SSS108] disputes this is simply because he desparately wants to remove my name as quoted by Shepherd from the article at all costs. Moreno is still pushing his agenda and POV!--ProEdits 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-SERVICE LIST

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

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

ProEdits, your personal attacks comprised of defamatory and slanderous comments against me have been removed. If you persist in these defamatory attacks, I will file a complaint againt you on Wikipedia. I suggest you talk to Andries about reliable sources. It does not matter what your original research allegedly uncovered about Bill Aitken. The fact remains that a reliable source published information stating that Bill Aitken is a expert on comparative religion [4]. Therefore, it can be referenced as such. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More red herrings from Moreno: I have never tried to substitute anything for the removed subjective materials of Kreydick. I am not presenting any 'original research' on the article, where I have only inserted about 4 words in all!--ProEdits 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a journalist - though I do write for newspapers and journals and am on the board of a quarterly cultural magazine distributed nationally in Norway - but I am a professional academic researcher since decades. I do not need to prove that the view expressed in the source 'This Week' is other than a self-made claim by Bill Aitken himself about being "an expert in comparative religion" Go to the source article and you will notice that it is part of his article, hence attributed to him, not to the editors or to anyone else. Besides this source is merely an on-line journal and as such should be eliminated according to the arbitration recently received. It has to go.--ProEdits 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tone of this conversation...

...Is way off:

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

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

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

Robert Priddy has not been attacked any more than he has attacked Sathya Sai Baba. Priddy completely discounts his utterly slanderous pages against Sathya Sai Baba and fails to mention that the only reason my link was added to his page was because of his defamatory link about Sathya Sai Baba. Since the link to his defamatory website has been removed, I have not attempted (not even once) to re-add my link. Priddy also lies (again) about me being a follower of SSB (very much the way he lied about Freelanceresearch being banned from Wikipedia). This is the type of shady, garrulous and whiny character who is trying to present himself as honest and fair-minded. Kreydick and (more recently) Rye both knew Alaya Rahm very well and were with him during the time of his alleged sexual abuse. Alaya never related anything but positive things about Sathya Sai Baba (even writing SSB a love poem after allegedly being sexually abused dozens of times). Furthermore, Alaya conceded, out of his own mouth, that he suffered no psychological trauma that warranted a therapist or doctor of any kind and could not identify to the court having seen any therapist or doctor for his alleged abuse. Alaya also admitted being a decade-long daily user of illegal street drugs and withheld his promiscuous sexual activities from his parents. All these facts have been purposely withheld from the general public by Priddy, Andries Rahm & Co. until now. That is why they are fighting tooth and claw to remove this information. It utterly compromises the poster child (Alaya Rahm) for their movement. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, despite jossi’s comments – Moreno goes on the rampage with more slander against me and Alaya Rahm. I have already posted a withdrawal of my erroneous statement that de Witt had been banned, but he still maintains I was lying, when an e-mail sent me mixed up de Witt and Moreno (the latter having been banned). This shows his entire approach towards me and also towards any criticism of Sai Baba. Moreno calls every clerical error or minor mistake - and also almost any statement he does not like - a lie. ‘Blatant lie’ is a term he and de Witt favour a lot too in their baseless and/or trivial allegations. Nowhere have I called Moreno a follower of Sai Baba (though I originally thought he was two years back), but he is most obviously and blatantly a defender of Sai Baba and his Organisation – going to enormous lengths to blacken every ex-follower who criticises Sai Baba - calling out of hand all the brave young men who stood forth liars, stalking them and posting dirt about them. He also adds every adulatory source - invariably biased pro-Sai sources - that he can find to the SSB article. He has also praised Sai baba on his website for giving him 'wonderful experiences', including his account on his website of having his pants taken down and being oiled by Sai baba on his the 'lower stomach' during his private interview. What does all that make him, I wonder? Is it not just a question of definition! Please take note carefully again that the above is entirely facts not slander, nor lies. He also distorts other facts. The Kreydick testimony in no way affects the truthfulness of Alaya Rahm’s claims of sexual abuse by Sai Baba, considering Alaya could not even tell his own parents for ages, so why would he tell a self-appointed ‘advisor’ when even Sai Baba had warned the family not to associate with him! Alaya was in a tremendous dilemma and suffered greatly, which he had to hide for the thousands of sycophants surrounding him, which he has explained adequately on the BBC film ‘The Secret Swami’. As an excuse for his constant attacks on my person, note that Moreno again claims I have slandered Sai Baba! What kind of defence is that! I maintain I have not slandered Sai Baba, of course, because in every case I am most careful on my web pages to weight every statement with exactness, and I invariably have sound backing – either documentary, testimony or from personal observation or overwhelming circumstantial evidence. I am willing to stand for my writings in any court of law – where dozens of allegedly sexually abuse victims, including genuine Indian ex-students who have contacted me with their experiences - would be put forward under court. In view of realising this, no official in the Sai Organisation or any Sai Baba related institutions has ever accused me of slander against anyone. Another sound reason for their reticence in not making any kind of formal complaint against my writings, is that they can’t stand the revealing publicity that would ensue, such as world media attention (especially in the UK due to the apparent royal connections) and a close follow-up BBC World documentary!--ProEdits 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that one or two searchers for truth will penetrate deep into this arcane repository of "knowledge" to read this exchange of paragraphs (and the whole entry on Sathya Sai Baba) to see the weaknesses in the Wiki system and its vulnerability. Ombudswiki, 24 September 2006.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

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

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

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

How to proceed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short: Don't connect the dots!

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

Pjacobi 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, There is not a single reputable source that reports on SSB's life with any depth. Please first try to find one book or find one article of which this article can be a summary. I have tried but not succeeded. The closest comes A. Nagel's 1994 Dutch language article The Sai Parodox published by the Free University press. Or de:Reinhart Hummel's article both of which are used as a source for this article. Yes, there are a lot of hagiographic sources or material based on hagiographic sources. It is true that this article is a mix of all kinds of sources and it cannot be anything else. I thought that Wikipedia encourages this, though of course it is easy to see to which kind of problems this leads in practice. Andries 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As presented in the ArbCom case, there are other sources that have not been explored:

• New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
• Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: Between Local, National, and Global Interests, Martin Ramstedt; RoutledgeCurzon, 2003
• Hindu Selves in a Modern World: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission, Maya Warrier; RoutledgeCurzon, 2005
• Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Peter L. Berger, Samuel P. Huntington; Oxford University Press, 2003
• Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions, Journal article by Vasudha Narayanan; Daedalus, Vol. 130, 2001
• Anomalies of Consciousness: Indian Perspectives and Research, Journal article by K. Ramakrishna Rao; The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, 1994
• Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
• Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, Lawrence A. Babb, Susan S. Wadley; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
• South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is worth the effort of trying to get those sources. I expect them to have only a few words about SSB in thoses articles. Andries 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The first source, includes 50 or more books and articles on the subject. I only mentioned a few. There are others such as Bowen David. The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its Origins and Development, Religious Beliefs and Practices. Leeds: The University of Leeds, Community Religious Project, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, 1988: pp. 412; Clarke Peter B., ed. The New Evangelists: Recruitment, Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. London: Ethnographica, 1987: pp. 160.; Haraldsson Erlendur. Sai Baba - ein modernes Wunder [Sai Baba: A Modern Miracle]. Freiburg, 1986; Krystal Phyllis. Sai Baba: The Ultimate Experience. 2nd ed. Longmead, Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1990: pp. 272; Taylor Donald. Sathya Sai Baba Movement in Britain: Aims and Methods. In The New Evangelists: Recruitment, Methods and Aims of New Religious Movements. P. B. Clarke, Ed. London: Ethnographica, 1987: pp. 77-93. And many others. I would argue that researching and summarizing these sources will lead to an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

In fact I'm sympathetic for Andries, but by now I judge him (as well as you) as effectively unable to contribute to this article, as can be seen by my (late and unheard) appeal [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FSathya_Sai_Baba&diff=73718889&oldid=70282183].

In the question of giant citations, fortunately (for some very strange value of "fortune") both the pro and the con side have contributed equally to this problem. So the first strike of the axe would hurt both sides.

Pjacobi 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The giant citations are a response to repeated accusations against me of out-of-context and selective citations. Having long citations prove that I do not do make such citations and in the case I have made them anyway then long citations give others the chance to easily check and correct this. Andries 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that would be good work, but for another project. Since I've stumbled into this battlefield by accident, I was thinking long and hard, how to handle these articles. By now I'm of the opinion, that sticking to a very strict definition of enyclopedia is the best way to go. If you start collecting evidence, that noone has perviously collected, weighted, summarized in print, you are overstepping the strict definition of enyclopedia.

And seriously, even if one feels tempted to blink an eye, there is no way to disagree with Jossi that Wikipiedia is not a place [...] to convert neophytes, to discourage followers, or to "alert the public". We have the medical disclaimer and the legal disclaimer. Do we need a religious disclaimer: "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Don't choose your religion based on material in Wikipedia alone!"

Pjacobi 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that is not okay to use newspaper articles as a source for these kind of articles? Andries 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I understand all the rest of what you say and I have heard it before, but if you do not want contributors to "collect" and "weight" evidence then may be it is better not to allow newspaper articles as sources for this article but confine ourselves to academic sources. Andries 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, thank you for your comments and clarifications. I find them honest and forthcoming. As I said before, I will step aside if experienced editors want to take over.

Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about Andries selective reinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, saying that sources must be referenced by reliable secondary sources, yet he sees no problem with citing primary sources (as in the case of Kevin Shephard's reference to Robert Priddy). Until Andries steps aside, neither will I. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You simply do not understand that the case of Kevin Shepherd reporting on Priddy's writings is not comparable to the court case. In the case of Priddy there is a secondary verifiable source (i.e. Shepherd) that reports on Priddy. None of this exists in the case of the court case. Were is the the verifiable secondary sources that reports on the court case? Andries 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC) amended 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Priddy is NOT a reliable source Andries. Very little of his information can be verified because it is SECOND-HAND (otherwise known as gossip). Unfortunately, you do not seem to understand the difference between gossip and a credible source whose statements can be verified. just because someone claims something doesn't mean they are telling the truth. Freelanceresearch 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Lisa de Witt (alias: Freelanceresearch), I have been a lifelong academic researcher and I understand a great deal about source materials (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Priddy). There is a little secondhand information in my hundreds of web pages, but it is always presented exactly for what it is, if so, also often with by accompanying links or references. The vast majority of my writings are either sourced to other documents (not least in my critiques of Sathya Sai Baba's own discourses, which are referenced thoroughly)or my direct first-hand experiences through two decades when I was mostly the national leader of the Sai Organisation in Norway and was also frequent visitor to the ashrams, where I had numerous personal meetings with Sai Baba and some of his closest confidantes. So much for de Witt's with all her endless unsourced, third-hand gossip and totally unrestrained slander, sexual language and name calling! (on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sathyasaibaba2/messages2 as conscientiousobjector2000.--ProEdits 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ProEdits, can you please stop whining and babbling on this Talk Page. Before you came along, the discussions were relatively on-topic. No one was engaging in personal attacks. This Talk Page is not a place for venting your hatred, frustrations and anger. You were the one who began with the attacks, naming names and making long, rambling diatribes. Personally, I am sick of your venom. Have Andries educate you on Wikipedia policy before you get banned for vandalizing the Sathya Sai Baba article by removing referenced material. Just because you don't agree or like the content, does not entitle you to remove it. The material on Aitkens is referenced to a reliable source. Just imagine how the article would look if others decided to remove referenced material simply because they didn't like it. Either you learn to be fair and stop pushing your Anti-Sai agenda or face the consequences. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, can you not yourself "please stop whining and babbling on this Talk Page. Before you came along, the discussions were relatively on-topic." You have long been engaging in personal attacks all over the place, including on Wikipedia, and you continue in the above! I am not pushing my agenda here like your pusing of your pro-Sai agenda. You talk about fairness - that is a travesty of anything remotely like your attitude! The Aitken material is merely an on-line webpage - which is not a primary source- and the contents are subjective judgements made by Aitken about critics and many other matters - not encyclopaedic material by any count. Hence removal was entirely justified. It should be removed, and I ask jossi to state a sensible opinion on this - though I can see he is clearly biased towards you (viz. his absurd doubting of The Times as a reliable source!) and also Pjacobi and GRBerry, if you please.--ProEdits 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe that you are actually in your seventies and still act like this, Priddy. Why do you always play the victim when you are the bully who starts the mudslinging to begin with? For all the supposed experience you claim to have in doing research you have very little to show for it as well as your ethics. Maybe you should try researching just why you are so angry and feel you have to take it out on Sai Baba or anybody who disagrees with you and confronts you with your sloppy research and bullying attitude. Freelanceresearch 10:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding RFC

Who requested the RFC? Where is it at? When was it made? And where on this talk page was the RFC made known? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I filed an RFC on 3 Sept. It was made known on the talk page hereabove by me. Andries 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Instructions For Filing A RFC

1. Create a section for the RfC on the article Talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example
2. In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.
4. After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.

Andries stated he was filing a RFC but never posted the direct link for this RFC on this page Ref. Rather, he just posted a general link to the Wikipedia:Request for comments. The RFC instructions were not followed, I was not directly informed about it (although I was a party to the discussion) and I never agreed to the issue being resolved before the edits were made. You did not follow proper procedure. Let me know if I am wrong about this. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean that you were not directly informed about it. [5] I did try to summarize it neutrally, but only after I got responses from the RFC. And of course. Andries 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Critical External Links Must Go

ArbCom ruled:

• "Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)."

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba Therefore, all critical external links must be removed from "in the article" in accordance with this ruling. All these links contain original research and personal accounts. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries is also violating the ArbCom ruling by re-inserting a link to his personal Anti-Sai Website on his userpage despite the ruling specifically stating that "It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)". View Andries re-insertion of his personal Anti-Sai Website link on his userpage: Ref. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the ruling applies to the userspace, but it applies to this article and its talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, I informed FloNight about it. Hopefully, she can give a clarification. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be completely clear here, the ruling does not mean that all critical external links must go, as those which provide references for valid criticism should without question remain. However, I would suggest that it is entirely reasonable to exclude all links which are not reliable sources, with reliabel sources defined explicitly to include identified authorities (that is, credible authorities on whose expertise significant criticism has been based). No link, pro or anti, should point to a blog or any other commentary without unambiguously establishing the credibility of the source. It is futile to deny that SSB is widely regarded as a fraud and a charlatan, and information to that effect which is well sourced from reputable authorities undoubtedly has a place here. Guy 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is arguing that, Guy. What needs to be deleted is the links to non-reliable sources that contain OR as per policy, with the additional caveat presented at WP:BLP, and the additional ruling related to links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you will be clear on this, but to my reading it was not evident from the comment, and it's very apparent that there are those who wish to exclude all critical material. I was just offering a clarification after reading the case. Guy 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia is NOT to be used as a tabloid soapbox for personal opinions. Sai Baba has NEVER been PROVEN in a court of law to be a fraud OR a child molestor. Accusations and opinions are NOT proof of criminal behavior. Thank you Arbitration Committee for resolving what should have been a common sense issue to begin with. Freelanceresearch 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And in the 80 years he has been alive, not even one alleged victim (to date) has filed a basic police report, complaint or court case against him for any kind of inappropriate behavior in India. There was Alaya Rahm, but alas, he self-dismissed his case before it ever went to court because he attempted to sue the wrong defendents in the wrong court and in the wrong country! SSS108 ^talk-email 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem sourcing that SSB is widely regarded as a fraud and a charlatan, it's just not entering the domain of crime and court decisions. --Pjacobi 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many reputable source describing him as a fraud, but I do not know reputable sources that say that he is widely regarded as a fraud. Andries 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Baloney Andries, rationalists aka athiests have a conflict of interest and are NOT "reliable" sources when they don't even believe in God to begin with! And then there are the evangelical Christians who perceive Baba as the anti-Christ. Get real Andries, you are not fooling anyone but yourself. Please read your wikipedia rules for questionable sources (with conflict of interest) Andries. Of course, you should know this by now but you are more interested in pushing your agenda. There is VOLUMUS documentation both medically and by governmment officials in India regarding Baba's miracles and anyone who says this isn't so is a blatant liar. And for the record pjacobe, I am not against well-documented sources but the anti-Sais continually try to use questionable and unreliable sources like Robert Priddy who blatantly lie as you have seen on this board. Very little of their claims can be reliably documented. In other words they are accusations based on emotionalism and it's getting VERY old.Freelanceresearch 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Freelanceresearch (and similiar accounts), would you please step aside and let Wikipedia contributors do their work. You are obviously not interested in this project to write an encyclopedia, but only continuing a struggle started elsewhere. Per policy and its ArbCom prececedence interpretation at WP:BOGDANOV, this can ultimately lead to your blocking.

Unfortunately I have no ArbCom powers, otherwise I'd allow editing this article only editors who have never heard of SSB before.

--Pjacobi 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

do you think that authors who had never had of SSB before would have the interest in improving and expanding it? The history of the article before I edited it indicates that this is not the case. Andries 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NO, I will NOT step aside. I have made it VERY clear I am here to make sure Andries follows Wikipedia guidelines and will not touch the article until I know he is contained and made to quit propagandizing and bullying me and others like you just attempted to do. Andries did this when I first came here and it didn't work. People can look at the record and see very clearly that Andries attempts to bully others into submission and monopolize the article by playing mind games with the rules. Andries of all people should know and be able to follow the rules by now but continues to willingly violate them in favor of your POV. Trust me piacobe , you won't win this one. I am not vandalizing the article and when I do edit I follow Wikipedia guidelines. Freelanceresearch 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You accuse those who are not believers of having a conflict of interest, but appear to deny that you also have one. 100% of your main space involvement is with this article, that makes you a single purpose account. Single purpose accounts may be banned from an article or Wikipedia without recourse to ArbCom. Tone down the rhetoric right now or I will block you. Guy 11:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Prema Sai Baba Issue

Andries once again re-inserted a link to his Anti-Sai Website before getting an answer or obtaining a consensus from FloNight. See Thread. Andries also attempted to justify his re-insertion of links to his Anti-Sai Website by citing the proposed decisions: Reference. For Andries information, that link is not ArbCom's final ruling. Andries needs to substantiate his actions by referring to The Final Decisions and not the one's that were formerly proposed. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Andries just stated on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page that he is not attempting to modify Wikipedia policy so that he can push links to Anti-Sai Sites on Sathya Sai Baba-related articles Reference. Just making this known now in case Andries changes his mind later. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes size

The footnotes section is running at 46K, and an article recommended overall size is 50Kb. Quoting long portions from a published work, can be construed as a copyright violation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You can shorten some footnotes after linking to convenience webpages. I do not think that the combination of short footnotes and lack of convenience links will help the reader. Andries 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Andries. Helping the reader means summarizing a reliable source, maybe adding a footnote if it is needed, and providing the ISBN number of the source, as done in thousands of articles in WP. This article is becomimg so bad in that respect, that is deserving a {{cleanup}} tag and maybe a {{copyvio}} tag as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And specifically this: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then remove what you think are copyright violations and for the rest please back up your opinion about the length of citations by referring to guidelines or policies. I oppose short citations unless there is a link to an online version. Andries 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is fixation of some editors here, to prefer online over print sources. There is nothing wrong giving a print source as a reference. --Pjacobi 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is highly unpractical and inconvenient to use dead-tree references. Andries 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You will need to do somre serious convincing to the community at large to make the current policy of WP:V be based on the availablity of online sources. Until that time, please drop it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are either misunderstanding me or making a caricature of my opinions. Of course I realize that WP:V is independent upon the online availability of sources, but what I mean to say is that decreasing online availability unnecessarily will not help the reader and hurts Wikipedia. Andries 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

<<<outdentYou are painting the issue as if it is an option between having a "convenience link" that is contrary to the ArbCom ruling and having a long quote that violates copyright. What Pjacobi and I are arguing that there is another, more viable option, and that is to summarize the reliable source's viewpoint and provide the source. That works remarkably well for WP so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started removing all cites from the references. This is the easiest way to go. The most relevant conclusion of the referenced work has to stand in the main text, and if somebody needs context he has to read the referenced work.

I'll temporarily extract the old cites to temp pages if some surgery is required from there.

It will take a while to remove all cites, reformat, split and collapse footnotes. So it's totally at random whether by now more pro or more con footnotes are removed.

Pjacobi 12:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Down to half the site. I can edit it from behind my firewall/proxy again instead of being forced to RDP on DMZ computer.

This is the link to version before my cite removals: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=74377264

Andries stated, that he put in cites because of accusations, that he misrepresented the sources. Anybody interested should check now, whether -- reading the context in the cites of the old version -- he considers anything misrepresented. If no specific cases are brought forward I'll consider the sources represented faithfully.

During my series of edits I also removed the "Media Articles" section -- with so many media articles referenced in the sources, why linking to another three dozens? If one of the unlinked media articles is considered especially illuminating, please complain now, and perhaps we will add it back.

During the edits I've superficially got the impression, that some paragraphs are based solely on anecdotical evidence, both of good and bad effects of being a SSB follower. I'd suggest deleting most of them and referring to the rest only briefly. Heck, every small Catholic pilgrimage chapel holds bundles of anectdotical evidence of healings and other wishes become true. We don't add all these to Roman Catholicism or Virgin Mary.

Pjacobi 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, a discussion was already had about Andries translations to Dutch articles. His translations were found to be accurate, albeit selective and wholly one-sided. Regarding media articles, I will wait for Andries to respond before I do. Most of the major media articles are already linked to in the refs. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, where were my translations found from Dutch "inaccurate, albeut selective and wholly one-sided". I do not remember this and I believe it to be untrue. Back up your accustion. You requested yourself without my involvement that other editors check Dutch translations. You selected the text yourself and it was thoroughly negative about SSB. All this indicated that I was not selective and that my translations were not inaccurate. Andries 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of the section with media articles and I will restore contents that SSS108 inappropriately removed from the article with the flawed justification that this is already I oppose removal of the short quotes in the citations. I have some understanding for removing the long ones, with the exception of the Dutch language ones that necessary to satisfy WP:V. Andries 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

@SSB: If you want to register problems with the translations please point out specific cases.

@Andries: I've noted your opposition against some of the cite removals but please stay put until new arguments or supporters of your view arrive. Feel free to discuss make the controversy known at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or wherever we can hope to get more eyeballs.

Pjacobi, I did so here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removal_of_text_from_citations Again, I have some understanding for your removal of long text in citations but nor for short ones or for non-English languages. Andries

You obviously misread my comments. I said they were found to be "accurate". Regarding your Dutch references being selective and wholly one-sided, I discussed this in the RFA here. Before Andries restores anything, I think he should tell us what exactly he is trying to restore, why and where any consensus was obtained. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. Regarding consensus I have no intention to request your approval to make edits. I want to restore Dutch language quotes and their tranbslation in citations to satisfy WP:V. Andries 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, can you tell me why you are keeping the "Other Websites"? Not sure why this is being kept if media articles are not. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, same standard across the board. If you insist on re-adding the text, I will insist on it too on refs I find important. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I fear you are totally misreading WP:V and WP:CITE. A citation is giving the properly formatted source in the references section, with WP:CITE discussing three possible citation styles. We are using Wikipedia:Footnotes. What does the footnore contain?

References typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Different professions, academic disciplines, and publishers have different conventions as to the order in which this information should be arranged, or whether additional information is required. Usually, the list is in alphabetical order by the author's surname. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional. Journal articles should include volume number, issue number and page numbers

See? Not a small or large quote from the publication. What you want to use from the cited source goes into the main article prose, usually in your own words, in some delicate cases as as short (!) verbatim quote. --Pjacobi 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, why is it that Andries continually insists on removing the source to a potentially libelous comment on Wikipedia. See Edit. I think that statement should be openly referenced to Shepherd and not stated so matter-of-factly. This very issue was discussed before with Jossie Reference. What is your opinion? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi, I have bad experience with using my own words to summarize reputable sources because then I get accused of misparaphrasing POV pushing etc. You can safely assume that all cases in this article are delicate. In other words it is better to use verbatim quotes. Andries 23:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal stuff

Cum grano salis I've now removed all cites from the references and split all footnotes holding multiple references. I've begin collapsing multiple references to the same article using the name="xyz" method. There will arise a problem: I'd would be very happy to collapsing all references to Erlendurs book into one, but that would lose the page number information. Are there workarounds known for this situation. --Pjacobi 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but a possible work around could be to list all the used page numbers. Andries 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)