Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 4

Although, in the past, Andries agreed that Brian Steel and Robert Priddy do not constitute reputable sources, he has not removed references to them. Nor has he removed Nagel's other non-notable writings, for example, "A Guru Accused". All these need to be removed. Then there is the issue of linking to the personal homepages of Anti-Sai Activists. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the entire section: "Some ex-followers believe in the truth of the allegations but at the same time refuse to retract the stories of miracles that they claim to have experienced directly. For example answers to prayers which they attribute to him or clairvoyance during an interview. Hence some ex-followers believe that while he has siddhis (psychic abilities) it is only because he is a powerful rakshasa or demon, while some claim he is simply a fraud and now totally deny they ever had any paranormal experiences they can attribute to SSB." either needs to be referenced by notable sources or removed. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder that sources need to be reputable but do not need to be notable. On the other hand, facts that are to be included in an article should be notable. You probably meant to say that that the statement required a reputable source. I often use words incorrectly, so this is just a gentle reminders. However, I think being careful with words will help to avoid unnecessary arguments. --BostonMA 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that what BostonMA writes is fully accurate. Here is my interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines

1. For inclusion in Wikipedia an article about a person or about a subject, the person or subject needs to be notable

2. Statements voiced as facts needs to be referenced by reputable sources, with a few exceptions, like non-reputable primary sources by the person himself

3. Facts mentioned in the article must be informative. For example, we do not write in a biography that a person sleeps almost every night, because that is not informative, but we do state in this article that SSB never claims to sleep (if I can find a reputable reference).

Andries 10:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The section can, I think, be (partially?) referenced by the Daily Telegraph, Salon and India Today, and Trouw articles. Please note that I left most now-redundant references intact due to lack of time, incl. the ones to Moreno. Fee free to remove them. Andries 06:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be creating a geocities account to host the disputed references on. After the account is completed, if Alan K. is willing, I will turn the account over to him, so it will be in neither the possession of myself or Anti-Sai Activists. Then (if no one has undertaken the task by then) I will sort through the references and remove the "now-redundant" ones, including my own. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss the link that goes to Andries Anti-Sai Site about videos of alleged faked manifestations. I left it in the article for now until there is more discussion on it. I am uncertain how Andries site can be referenced in relation to this material. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing deletion of the Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba page. It is unfair to have 2 pages devoted to this issue. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

well, seems like a good idea. Deleting it increases maintainability. Andries 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I will work on incorporating the Beliefs and Practices section back onto the main page. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also disputing Nagel's English article about Wolf Messing. This English paper has never been published in reputable sources and it is clear that it is not the same as the original Dutch publication. The page contains references that link to Anti-Sai Sites and other pages. Therefore, I suggest removing the link unless it can be shown that the English, web-version has been published in reputable sources. I do not object to the reference to the original Dutch article. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the English language article has been published in a reputable source. Andries 19:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I am going to remove the link from the Main SSB Page and on the Non-Biased geocities site. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(discussion moved to Trouw section)

It is also my intention to remove the following: "his Critics such as David C. Lane and SSB’s former followers have footage of his alleged materialization on their websites that they consider at least suspicious and at most evidence of fraud." (along with the reference that goes to Andries' personal site). I suggest we remove this reference because the sentence includes the name of David. C. Lane in an attempt to push the link to Andries personal site. David Lane does not have any video on his site. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

David Lane has published videos of SSB's materialization of his website. The wording may be open for improvment but I do not agree with its deletion video on David Lane's website Andries 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the link that goes to "The Findings". Although The Findings has been cited in reputable sources, The Findings itself, has not been published by reputable sources. Therefore, the link should be removed for this reason and all comments taken from it (not published on reputable sources) should be excluded. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with removing the link to the findings. Andries 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Findings is a pivotal document in the whole SSB story and the Michelle Goldberg's Salon.com article or Mick Brown's Daily Telegraphy article links to it too. Not linking to it would be a witholding the reader important information. Andries 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also my intention of removing the following: "Sethi complained in a testimony published on the internet that he was treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police after he was found with papers critical of the Baba in Puttaparthi." This should be removed because it this was not published in the India Today article. It is not published in reputable sources. I also intend on removing: "In the years 1999 and 2000 SSB has repeatedly belittled the internet and discouraged its use." I also suggest that the following be moved to the Media Section: "In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district sued followers of Sathya Sai Baba for use of the name Sai Baba in the court of Rahata. The case is as of January 2006 pending." If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the comments by Sethi, but I see no reason for removing the other two statements. I can provide and have provided on this talk page references for the anti-internet statements by SSB. Articles and books that are already referenced in the article do not need to be listed in the bibliography, media or external link section, as per guidelines. Andries 22:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, if you have disagreements, then we need to take it up with mediation. If you have no intention of using the mediation process, you need to state so publicly. So far, you have been silent and have refused to publicly state your willing to utilize the mediation process. You still have questions you have not answered and continue to avoid giving an answer. So unless you want the material in question changed, you need to tell me which course of action you plan on taking: Mediation or no mediation? SSS108 ^talk-email 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can take those disputes to mediation. Andries 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries, are you still interested in mediation? If so, please take some time to respond to this. --BostonMA 10:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am not asking you whether or not "I" should take the issue to mediation. I am asking whether or not you agree to participate in mediation regarding the issues I brought up. It is a simple question and you have consistently failed to answer it. Your actions have shown that you are either stonewalling, circumventing or not interested in the mediation. The Findings cite sources that are non-reputable, including Premanand's article on whether SSB influenced the judiciary or not. This issue has been discussed in mediation and it took you 11 days (with demands made from me) before you indirectly answered the questions. Direct answers to these questions were asked for, and you have thus far refused to answer them [1] (8 days and counting). So telling me to take the issue to mediation when you have shown no interest in mediation is conflicting. You need to publicly state, on the record, whether or not you are interesting in pursuing mediation or not. What is your answer? SSS108 ^talk-email 15:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not help the article if I answer the question about Premanand as a source, because the article does not use Premanand as a source. Nevertheless I will continue to answer the difficult questions about Premanand. Andries 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The importance in answering the questions about Premanand has already been made clear to you by the mediator Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the following paragraph from the introduction to the article: "Critics, including skeptic Basava Premanand and the former follower Welsh pianist David Bailey, claim that these materializations are done by sleight of hand and say that this can be verified with videos available on the internet. Most vehement criticism since the year 2000 are the allegations, made by former devotees, of inappropriate sexual relations with young men. Followers like, Peter Pruzan, consider the evidence of wrongdoing against Sathya Sai Baba to be insufficient. According to a cover article in the India Today newspaper in 2000, the coterie that surrounds Baba dismisses these allegations by denouncing them as "anti-Hindu" attacks made by foreigners [7]." The reason why this paragraph should be removed is because it is already fully discussed under the critics section and is redundant. It is also my opinion that repeating (or "summarizing") this type of information over and over is promoting an Anti-Sai POV. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call the introduction is normally called the lead section and the lead section should contain a summary of the whole article. Andries 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead_section The lead section should contain a definition and an overview. It is not an introduction. The current lead section is not perfect, because it does not give a good overview of the varying responses to the allegations by SSB and devotees: the responses range from jealousy (SSB), bribery (SSB), refusal to comment (ashram secretary acc. to India Today and Danish documentary), anti-Hindu attacks (according to India Today article), and insufficient evidence of wrondoing (Pruzan acc. to Danish documentary). Andries 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am going to remove it. If you feel that it shouldn't be removed, then you should answer the question you keep avoiding giving an answer to: Are you or are you not willing to participate in mediation to resolve our disagreements? Yes or no? You need to give a public answer instead of maintaining silence, as you have done thus far. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have today given answers to several questions in mediation. Andries 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, then we should discuss our differences of opinion with the mediator, instead of reverting back and forth. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary to the article. It is not a place to address specifics. The criticism section should be summarized in one short sentence. Wikipedia:Lead_section : "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles)." SSS108 ^talk-email 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you need to discuss the changes first, before editing the article. I am giving you advance notice of my intentions. You should do the same, as was agreed in mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not remember this agreement. I thought that it only applied for deleting material with a 48 hours time to provide sources. Andries 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting links and pushing links that go to your Anti-Sai Site. You should give advance warning to discuss this first before doing it. You are not. I am going to abide by the 3 revert rule. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind linking to another website with the footage, but I do not know any. Andries 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is referenced by reputable sources, otherwise, it can be deleted by any editor. I am also objecting to the personal homepage of David Lane. We agreed no personal homepages. David Lane's personal homepage is not referenced by reputable sources and I intend to remove it as well. If you disagree, I suggest we take it to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the materializations have been shown on TV such as the BBC the lingam regurgitation and in the 1995 TV documentary "Guru Busters" by UK's Channel 4. So at least some of the footage of the materializarions has been referred to and published by reputable sources. Andries 21:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you answer the mediation questions that are still outstanding, we can discuss it in mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to change the number of estimated followers for SSB from 3 - 10 million to 3 - 50 million. Mick Brown, in the Divine Downfall interview said that SSB has an estimated (up to) 50 million devotees. Therefore, I am going to use this source as a reference for the new estimated number of followers. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the following comment: "predominantly people of Indian ethnic origin", in relation to number of adherents. According to the Adherents link, 3 million are from india and 7 million from other parts of the world. This would mean that the SSB's devotees are not predominantly of Indian ethinic origin. Also, the reference is misleading as it says "retrieved March 2006". The numbers in question are from a 1999 article. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a miscalculation on the above numbers. Instead of saying "3-50 milion", I put "10-50 million" because 10 million is the total figure given on the Adherents site. 3 million is a partial estimation that only accounts for Indian adherents. I gave the total figure, not a partial one. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave this article a neutrality warning because of witholding the reader the chance to see footage of materializations. The materializations are crucial for the SSB article. Andries 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this article requires a neutrality warning for other reasons. Again, you are attempting to force your POV by linking to your Anti-Sai Site. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I already gave you a 48 hour notice of my intention to remove certain material from the article. I told you that if you disagreed with my proposed edits that we should take it to mediation. You agreed. However, you still have not answered your outstanding mediation questions. I will delay making these edits for today. However, since you still have not responded to the outstanding mediation questions, effectively stonewalling the mediation process, we cannot proceed. If you want to engage in another revert war, you are going to be hard-pressed for giving valid reasons for reverting the article. You agreed to mediation regarding these edits, but you have refused to answer the outstanding mediation questions so we can discuss these edits. You have not given any reason for refusing to answer these mediation questions and despite many promises to answer them, you have not. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am planning on removing the following material:

• Link to Andries site about alleged videos of faked materializations.
• Link and references to David Lane's personal site and non-reputably published comments made by him.
• Link to The Findings, which has never been published by reputable sources.

I will be removing this content because it has not been published by reliable or reputable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the findings published in Mick Brown's article Divine Downfall. [2] in the UK Telegraph on 28 Oct. 2000. Andries 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The videos of materializations have been shown in various TV documentaries. The link to the Findings is also present in articles in reputable magazines. Andries 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to reference it Andries. I can't take your word on it. And we are not talking aobut "a link to The Findings". We are talking about where The Findings has been published by reputable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email

If the link to the findings has been published by a reputable source then Wikipedia can also link to the findings. link to the Findings in the UK Telegraph on 28 Oct. 2000. Andries 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Then link the section about The Findings to the UK Telegraph article. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain this? I do not understand what you want. Andries 18:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am planning on removing/editing the following material:

• Removing link to Beyerstein's alleged book, "Sai Baba's miracles: an overview". As far as I can tell, this is not a book but was simply printed by Premanand in paper form. It does not have an ISBN # nor has it been cited or published by reputable or reliable sources.
• Changing the reference for the quote: "According to Donald Taylor in his 1987 article "Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain", SSB made extraordinary declarations to be God to keep his authority at the center of the movement and he made his claim to get reincarnated as Prema Sai Baba in 1963 to maintain his authority and to prevent a struggle about his succession as long as he lives." → to simply read: "Taylor, Donald Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Hinduism in Great Britain, Richard Burghart (ed.), 1987, London/New York: Tavistock Publications, pp. 130-131. ISBN 0422609102" instead of publishing the entire article by Rajghatta, who is irrelevant for the quote.
• Move the following to the Media section: "In 2006 followers of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Ahmednagar district sued followers of Sathya Sai Baba for use of the name Sai Baba in the court of Rahata. The case is as of January 2006 pending." SSS108 ^talk-email 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation but I disagree on all points:

• • The book by Beyerstein has been published by Indian CISCOP which is reasonably reputable.
  • Most of the excerpt from Taylor (not Rajghatta) is relevant for what is asserted in the Wikipedia about SSB's charimatic authority.
  • Why move to the sentences about the dispute between devotees of Shirdi Sai baba and Sathya Sai Baba to the media section? I cannot see any reason for this.

Andries 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, then I will take it to mediation. Do you also agree to take it to mediation? SSS108 ^talk-email 18:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Beyerstein's alleged "book" was published in sections in the Indian Skeptic Magazine over the course of several months: Reference Later, it was organized from past publications and made into a pamphlet. It is not a book and does not have an ISBN #. Furthermore, the chairman and publisher for the Indian CSICOP is Premanand: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries and SSS108, The article currently has two systems of references/footnotes in use. The footnote/reference numbers are duplicated because of the use of two systems and the result is quite confusing. Please take some time to fix these. --BostonMA 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, this is your mess. Clean it up :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, finally, there is still a lot to be improved in the references, but they are now all in the new format. Andries 09:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! --BostonMA 15:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sathya_Sai_Baba.jpg cannot be used in this article. Fair use of cover art applies to an article about the book, CD or DVD only, and not applicable to an article about the subject of these works. See Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Images. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.npi-news.dk/ I could not understand from their home page who or what "NPI-News" is. Is it a news website? What is it? Can it be considered this a reputable source? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. It was linked to by a reputable source as background information. Andries 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Which reputable source? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The page in question does not have any return links to the NIP-News site. It is a dead link. If it was truly referenced by the NIP-News site, it should be within their site template. It is not. Therefore, this link is no proof that the article was published by a reputable or reliable source. This issue was discussed in mediation: Reference and Andries snubbed this discussion although I gave a 48 hours notice for him to make his case. Andries ignored this issue for 48 hours and is now trying to make his case. Andries refuses to make his case with the mediator, once again showing his refusal to abide to the mediation process. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review Does Citation Demonstrate Peer Review of Entire Article --BostonMA 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agreed with a 48 notice before information can be removed. But of course this does not mean that information cannot be re-added in case a reputable source has been found after the 48 hours period. I do not always have the energy and time to search for sources within 48 hours. Here is what BostonMA wrote "Remember that on Wikipedia, edits are not irreversible." suggesting that statements can be re-added after sources have been found. Andries 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is yet not clear to me which reputable source cites this web page and in which context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read this talk page. Andries 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you saying that this material has been published by the 28/10/2000 article "Divine Downfall" by Mick Brown in the UK Telegrah[sic]? Then cite that article, not a unknown website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No I do not say so. I do not cite the unknown website that published the Findings. I cited only the article by Mick Brown that included a link to the Findings as background information, just like the way I want this Wikipedia article to look like. Andries 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

Andries, you have two choices, to either resolve the issue through mediation or not. Which is your choice? You need to state it publicly. Are you willing to resolve this issue through mediation or not? The mediator already discussed this issue and you have not provided any reputable source that has published The Findings. There are only 3 sites that link the NPI-News article in question: Reference None of them published the contents in full. One is a spam site. One is for Stripping The Gurus and the other is for your Anti-Sai Site. That's it. Even the NPI-News site does not mention The Findings on their own site. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mick Brown treats the Findings extensively in his article Divine Downfall in the Telegraph UK of 28/10/2000 and links to Findings in that article on NIP-News as background information. I think Wikipedia can and should do the same because the Findings are a pivotal document in the debate around SSB. Andries 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you did not answer the question: Are you are you not willing to resolve this issue through mediation? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have no option other than going through mediation because we will keep reverting each other. Andries 20:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, for your information, this issue did go through mediation: Reference Answer the mediator's comments there. You had plenty of time to address this issue and chose not to do so until your 48 hour warning expired. Once again, you are acting contrary to the process. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will attempt to have something prepared within a few hours. --BostonMA 20:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA take your time. As you are aware I ususally take my time too. :) Andries 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you have a source to back up the statement that:

"The major cause of this controversy was the appearance on the internet of a document called The Findings compiled by the Welsh concert pianist David Bailey and his wife who were well-known devotees."

Please let me know as soon as possible. --BostonMA 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC) --BostonMA 21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please answer the question raised by Jossi as to which reputable source cited npi-news. Thanks. --BostonMA 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) BostonMA 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The reputable source that needs to be cited is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2000/10/28/tlbaba28.xml Readers can link directly from that page. The reason is that the telegraph article provides a context that the other link does not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, do you accept Jossi's proposal? If so, there is no need for me to write something up. --BostonMA 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with an indirect link to the Findings. A reputable source treats the Findings quite extensively and provides a link to the Findings as background information. Wikipedia gives background information about the Findings, just like the article by Mick Brown in the Telegraph. I think that based on this, Wikipedia should provide a link to the Findings in the reference/notes section. Andries 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking to that web page is not appropriate. The fact that a reliable source cites a web page does not necessarily make that web page a reliable source. That would be a very strange interpretation of of what a reliable source is. Read: WP:RS. There is specific language in this guideline that address this specific issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Andries position is a bit more nuanced. I don't think that Andries is claiming that The Findings is a reputable source per Wikipedia, but that the document itself played a role in a controversy. Since both the controversy and the document which played a role in the controversy are mentioned in the article, it is a convenience to the user if there is a link to that document. I'm not sure at the moment what I think about this appoach, but would like to hear your opinion. --BostonMA 16:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA's description of my view is quite fair, but I would like to state that The Findings did not just play a role in the controversy around SSB, but it played a pivotal role in it. Its importance in the controversy is undisputed and indisputable. The Findings are not just treated in the article by Mick Brown in the UK Telegraph, but extensively treated and linked to. It may even deserve its own Wikipedia article. Andries 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a leaflet of the London School of Economics affiliated cult/NRM offfice Inform (founded by Eileen Barker) that also links to the document called the Findings and states its importance. (pdf file) By the way, the leaflet contains quite a lot of minor inaccuracies, but no major ones. Andries 17:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Findings is original research. It has not been published by reputable or reliable sources. Period. End of argument. The following comments (and all other's associated with it) need to be referenced by reputable sources: "The major cause of this controversy was the appearance on the internet of a document called The Findings compiled by the Welsh concert pianist David Bailey and his wife who were well-known devotees." Since there are no reputable sources that published The Findings, then it needs to referenced to the Divine Downfall article that is a reputable source. We went through this once before when Andries tried to include Brian Steel's original research because Nagel provided a link and make reference to him in her college homework. Andries is attempting to do the same now, openly pushing his POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not the same type of dispute as the Nagel Steel dispute. The fact remains that a reputable source treated the Findings extensively and provided a link to the Findings to provide the reader background information. Wikipedia can and should do the same. Andries 17:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to square one: Where has The Findings been published by reputable sources? Are we to begin to include my rebuttal to The Findings as well: Reference ? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the inclusion of a reference to the INFORM document and the Telepgraph article are substantial and should be referenced in preference. Readers will have access to the commentary by these reputable and secondary sources, rather that the direct reference to a primary source. This is a non-issue IMO. It will also resolve the wording issue as it we can simply say According to an article that appeared in The Telegraph and a report by INFORM, the major cause of this controversy was the appearance on the internet of a document called The Findings, that was compiled by two ex-followers ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why Wikipedia's linking policy should deviate significantly from reputable sources. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that supports this policy of not linking to documents that are considered important by all informed parties. Andries 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that The Findings is original research and that it has not been published by a reputable publisher. What I am not convinced about at the moment is whether that is the end of the argument. Please consider the article Blood libel. At the moment, this article contains a link to a site which is certainly not reputable per Wikipedia standards. I am not sure if this is good practice. However, the mere fact that the link is there, suggests that the practice has a certain level of acceptability among some editors in the community. The link helps to illustrate a controversy.

One very major difference that case, and the case with The Findings however, is that the Blood libel article is not written in a voice which lends credence to the claims made in the link, whereas a link to The Findings in the SSB article might easily be interpretted as an endorsement of the content of that document. I am therefore wondering whether the problem with the link to The Findings lies more with the wording of the SSB article, than with the presence of a link to a document mentioned in the article. For example, the SSB article, if I recall correctly, does not mention that The Findings contain anonymous testimony and it has not been published by a reputable publisher. I am still trying to form an opinion on this matter, but those are some of the concerns that I am attempting to grapple with. --BostonMA 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, you could try to ask a general question at the talk page ofWikipedia:external links without mentioning this particular dispute and mention that 1. the document has not been published by a reputable source. 2. It is considered by reputable sources as important. 3. reputable sources have linked to the document. Andries 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I also wish to apologize for the advice to simply list the link as an item that you intended to remove. It is my hope that at some point, I will not be needed, and wanted to test the water to see whether the issues could be resolved through "normal" channels. I had not anticipated the arguments that have been raised, so I apologize for suggestion falling short. --BostonMA 18:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputes are quite often more complicated and nuanced than one thinks at first glance. :) Andries 18:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I think that if other articles were as highly disputed as this one, links like the one you mentioned would not be allowed. It appears that many pages link to original research and since these have not been disputed, they are left in place. As I pointed out before, the SSB article had numerous links to articles that were comprised of original research. Andries never thought twice about including all this material and it was allowed for 2 years by other editors, including Willmcw. I think that when an article is disputed and wikipedia policy is enforced, these types of links would be excluded. Even if there is a trend among other editors to include links to original research, I think it is better to resolve the issue through wikipedia policy than following the trend of other editors. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that linking to the Findings is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies. Not only the article in the Telegraph by Mick Brown, and the INFORM leaflet link to it, but also the article in salon.com in the middle of their article on Sathya Sai Baba. So now we have two reputable sources (salon.com and Telegraph) and one reasonably reputable source (INFORM) that treat the Findings and link to it. With the latest information with regards to salon.com I am prepared to bring this dispute to arbitration, because I think the case for inclusion of the link to the Findings is very strong. Andries 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the ArbCom does not take cases related to content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew this to some extent. I think I will first have to revert 3x24 hours for a sufficient long period of time to have this case arbitrated. :) Andries 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good way to get Arbcom to ban you, not a good way to get them involved in a content dispute. --BostonMA 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The gist of my remark about the arbcom was of course that I now consider the arguments for inclusion of the link to the Findings very strong and the arguments for exclusion weak. Andries 21:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The stronger argument is, as per policy, to include the secondary sources such as INFORM, The Telegraph and Salon articles, in which they refer to this online web page. The point being that a reference to a source, by a reliable source, does not make that source reliable. The oinly notability of that source is the fact that it has been cited. So citing these that cite it is the correct way to do this. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources link in their articles to the Findings. So if we really want to follow secondary sources then the Wikipedia article should also include the link. Andries 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, can you please explain where selectively following secondary sources (such as not linking to the Findings) is encouraged by Wikipedia policies? Andries 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, this is very simple.

1. The web page in question is neither notable, not a reliable source as per WP guidelines;
2. Several reputable, notable and reliable sources refer to that source;
3. That fact alone does not make that source reputable or reliable;

The correct thing to do is to provide these reliable sources, so that readers (a) can relate to them as described by these reputable sources and (b) so that there is no challenge in the future as for the reputablity of that source. Readers, after all, do not really know the "story" behind that web page in a weird non-notable website. Just think of the reader, for a moment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I do not dispute your points 1, 2, and 3, but I cannot see how you can jump to the conclusion that linking is not allowed. After all the Wikipedia article does describe the context of the document. Andries 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you see me ever using the term "not allowed"? What I am arguing is that referencing the secondary sources is superior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jossi, thanks for the clarification. I tried to edit the article accordingly. Andries 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<There are several problems with your edit: It says A major turning point in the debates about SSB was the publication in the year 2000 of a document called the "Findings" that was compiled by the couple Faye and David Bailey, who were well known devotees.

1. Document published where?
2. A major turing point according to which source?
3. Well known devotees according to whom?
4. The edit states many things as facts, when actually these are uncorroborated allegations.

The edit needs a lot of work to be considered NPOV. I coukd do it myself, but as you are in mediation, I leave that to the mediator to sort it out. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. I have no reputable sources that state where the document was published so I cannot state that in the article. (I know of course the background of the document and can digress on it if you are interested, but it is basically irrelevant for the article)

ad 2. This is described in mentioned references. Please read them. I will also check for accuracy.

ad 3. I think this is described in the mentioned references. Please read them. I will also check for accuracy.

ad 4. No, it does not states the allegations as facts. My edits simply describe the document which is clear if you read it well.

Andries 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for formatting)

I read the references, and I think that this section can be considerably tightened and NPOVed. As it stands now it is a bit of a mess, the footnotes not always related to the text, etc. The prose is atrocious as well (e.g. the document initiated a flood of many allegations) etc. The idea here is to be able to quote these sources as in ""according to a Salon.com article" or "in an artilcle in the Telegraph it is reported that" etc. Otherwise it reads as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should we write "According to the Telegraph, etc" and "According to Salon.com,"? Is there a reputable source that contradicts what The Telegraph and Salon.com have written? If you cannot find such a reputable source then I do not agree with attributing it. Andries 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because is them that say that. Isn't that obvious? I think that you need to read WP:NPOV again, whe it says that Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I will re-write the paragraph a bit to deal with your objection that allegation are stated as fact. Okay, I missed that from the NPOV policy, but apart from that I do not think that the paragraph contains an opinion. It describes all facts that I cannot reasonably doubt. what opinion are you referring to? Andries 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that allowed analysis of sources relate to verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources only. Adding our interpretations of primary sources violates Wikipedia:No original research. So the idea here is to cite The Telegraph and the Salon.com article rather than that web page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Feel free to use this edit if you and SSS108 perfer this version better:

According to an article that appeared in The Telegraph in October 2000^[1], a document called The Findings, written by David and Faye Bailey (former followers whose marriage was arranged by Sai Baba) that described severe allegations against SSB, initiated fierce debate between proponents and critics of SSB on the Internet^[2]. These allegations included that SSB does not heal sick people, and that according to them there are financial irregularities with charity project affiliated with SSB, such as the hospital and water project. The most severe allegations are related to descriptions of sexual abuse by Baba, and the requests for help that Bailey received from these that allegedley suffered such abuse.^[1]#

I do not agree with writing "According to the Telegraph, " because the paragraphy describes all facts, not opinions. I also disagree with the "The most severe allegations" because salon.com uses the word "testimonies", not "allegations". Andries 02:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What you write "initiated fierce debate" is not backed up the sources and is factually incorrect. The internet debate already existed and was not initiated by the Findings, but only intensified. Andries 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done my best in explaining how to NPOV and attribute this paragraph. As this dispute is still in mediation, I will not edit the article myself. Up to you, SS108 and the mediator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So now "leaflets" are "reputable sources"? And the leaflet in question is published by a religious institution that supports mainstream churches: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 22:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that an extensive description of the Findings does not fit into the current structure of the article that is sorted by the type of accusations. The Findings contains various kind of accusations. Andries 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, yes. Most of them anonymous and contradictory. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Andries. That is why we should only reference reputable sources and not that web page. These reputable sources cited that web page within a specific context. That is what should be referenced. It is so obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inform's Banner: Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That is OK, SSS108. It is a valid source as per WP guidelines. You can, for NPOV, explain the affiliations of that source in any referenceto that source in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am personally not convinced that the leaflet by INFORM is a reputable source. Andries 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inform also owns the http://www.cults-sects-nrms.info/ site. And if you check who their patrons and Board of Governers are, you will notice a majority of them are either Priests or members of Churches (many orthodox): Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I have been following your discussion with Jossi. I notice that in your most recent edits, you did not use a direct link to The Findings. I would like to know if you indend to use a direct link to The Findings in the near future, or whether that issue is settled for now. Please let me know. --BostonMA 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Settled, no, not really, but it is not a hot item for me anymore. So if you want to save yourself some work then do not do any effort. Andries 02:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit by Andries stills needs work as per my proposed wording. The current version is not NPOV and does the atribution is incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As this discussion is being held in the article's talk page rather than in the mediation page, I will proceed and edit this specific sentence so that it is properly attributed. BostonMA, if you prefer to deal with this in the mediation, please let me know and I will refrain from editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please help me to understand your position regarding attribution in the remarks about the effect of The Findings. Do you think that the remarks made in the article are inaccurate, or would not be accepted by a significant minority of experts? (or even by a majority of experts?) --BostonMA 16:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem that Jossi has with attribution of the paragraph with the Findings. I will not accept re-wording of facts as if they were just opinions. The major problem with the current wording of the paragraph about the Findings is its mixed-up chronology: the Baileys first wrote positive books about SSB that he later retracted. Andries 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not pass a judgement about the remarks made in the Findings.

I was insufficiently clear in my question. I am not asking you whether you agree that the contents of The Findings are fact, I'm asking whether you agree that the following are facts, or at least are not contested by a significant minority of experts.

1. A major turning point in the debates about SSB was the publication in the year 2000 of a document called the "Findings"
2. former followers Faye and David Bailey (who together wrote three books on Sathya Sai Baba [29]) describe their disillusionment with the guru.

and so on. The question as I see it is whether these sorts of claims need to be attributed as claims, opinions etc. or whether they are facts which are accepted by all POVs. If you believe that these are opinions or are contested, then that would help me to understand your position, if not, then I need to search elsewhere. --BostonMA 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How can these be facts? A fact is something reported as such by a reputable source. The contents of this document, could be facts, but there is no way to verify these as such. We can say that a major turning point, etc, if that is attributed to someone. We can also say that the ex-followers describe their disillusionment, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am a bit confused as to why you question whether the items mentioned could be facts. Are they not asserted as facts by the sources that Andries has cited? Do you think that the sources that Andries has cited are not reputable sources? For example, the text by Andries asserts "A major turning point in the debates about SSB was the publication in the year 2000 of a document called the "Findings"". The salon.com article asserts "...It all started with a document called "The Findings,"" So, I'm confused by your comments, and would appreciate further explanantion. --BostonMA 20:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not care if these are false or the absolute truth. Only that we ought to cite these that refer to it, otherwise we are misleqading readers into believing that this "document" is considered by a reliable source by Wikipedfia, when certainly it is not. The sentence must include wording about the reliable sources that describedthis article. This is my proposed wording (that needs to be improved surely):

According to an article that appeared in The Telegraph in October 2000^[1], a document called The Findings, written by David and Faye Bailey (former followers whose marriage was arranged by Sai Baba) that described severe allegations against SSB, initiated fierce debate between proponents and critics of SSB on the Internet^[3]. These allegations included that SSB does not heal sick people, and that according to them there are financial irregularities with charity project affiliated with SSB, such as the hospital and water project. The most severe allegations are related to descriptions of sexual abuse by Baba, and the requests for help that Bailey received from these that allegedley suffered such abuse.^[1]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the current article states nowhere that the Findings is a reliable source and does not cite anything directly from the Findings. Please note that almost every word in the current paragraph is backed up by reputables sourcesn which is something that you still have to show for your version. For example, the Salon.com source that you use as a reference does not use the word "allegation", but still you chose to use it in your version. Apart from that your version is unacceptable for me due to reasons that I have already explained. Andries 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You cand correct "allegations" and write "testimonies of alleged misconduct" or similar. As it reads now, the sentence refers to the Findings as it it is an accepted reputable source, when it is not. If the sentence does not cite anything directly from the Findings, is it not necessary to say who is citing these? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does the article treat the Findings as a reputable source? Please give me an example. The article treats the Findings nowhere as a reputable source, otherwise I would have cited directly from it.

It is not necessary to mention who is writing about the Findings because

1. the journalists describe facts, not opinions

2. you can easily see in the reference section who is writing what.

Andries 17:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The article treats the Findings as an important document, not as a reputable source. The importance of the Findings is backed up by reputable sources and it indisputable and undisputed. Andries 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for clarity)

No Andries, the "document" as you call it, is not backed up by reputable sources. It is referred to by reputable sources. There is a huge difference between these two distincttions. Thus, we ought to allow readers to know the difference. As it stands now, the fact of these references is hidden in the cites, and misleading. What is the problem in saying shich sources says what and in which context? I do not understand your position of wanting to hide this very important info from readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that the Findings are backed up by reputable sources. I said that the importance of the Findings is a fact and backed up by reputable sources. The reason I oppose attribution is because facts do not have to be attributed: the contents of the Findings, as described by Goldberg in salon.com and Brown in the Telegraph deals with facts, not with opinions. Andries 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. The Findings does not contain facts. If these were facts these would have been reported as such. The Findings contain allegations, assessments and opinions made by the authors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. The current version does not describe the Findings as if they contain facts. Andries 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the source of misunderstanding: my ambiguous wording. What I meant to say is that the description by Mick Brown in the Telegraph and Michelle Goldberg in the salon.com of the contents of the Findings as currently worded in the article deals with facts, not with opinion. That is why their descriptions of the contents of the Findings do not have to be attributed. I never meant to say that the contents of the Findings contains facts. Andries 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, can we please stop the endless disputes about the inclusion and exclusion of critical material and add for some time only (relatively) uncontroversial material to the article? So much energy is spent on try to minimize the critical material and resistance to that, that other aspects of the article are neglected. I only have limited time and energy. So if I have to spend my time on proving and references and debating every critical point then I will not have time to deal with other aspects of the article. May be we can have a truce that lasts for a certain amount of time, let us say two weeks. Andries 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Andries. The other parts of the article are not very contentious right now. You have spent over 2 years trying to exclude "favorable" material about SSB and including every imaginable negative source you could find against him (mainly from non-reputable sources). Other editors let you get away with it. The fact of the matter is that the current mediation is setting the groundwork to resolve future disputes. I am not willing to wait 2 weeks because, unlike you, my life does not revolve around Wikipedia. I am simply involved in this discussion because I recognize the importance of the Wikipedia article. Once the article is more fair and balanced, I am going on with my life. Therefore, the edits outlined earlier are on their way. Either you step up to the plate and participate in the mediation process or stop your whining. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You will never consider the article fair and balanced, because you will always consider it to have it too much space dedicated to criticism. Andries 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries, that is your opinion. The fact of the matter is that I have never sought to eliminate the Anti-Sai POV. However, since mediation has begun, I realized that the same standards you applied to "favorable" material on SSB is entirely applicable to Anti-Sai material. Therefore, if original research and non-reputable sources cannot be cited for "favorable" content, then the same should be done with Anti-Sai material. Same standards across the board. That is what I seek. You started it. Now, you have to follow through. Don't blame me for holding Anti-Sai material to the same standard you hold "favorable" material to. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment: "former follower Welsh pianist David Bailey, claim that these materializations are done by sleight of hand and say that this can be verified with videos available on the internet", I am going to remove the section "and say that this can be verified with videos available on the internet" (unless it can be referenced by reputable sources). I am also going to insert David Bailey's former claims (from his books) in which he testified to viewing first hand miraculous manifestions in which jappamalas and rings and watches manifested "in mid air" before his eyes. And yes, instead of just referencing the book, I am going to type the entire reference out, just like Andries likes to do. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, why are you reverting the article when you were given a 48 hour notice? You had all that time to discuss the edits and you refuse to discuss them, instead resorting to arbitrary reverts. Why don't you explain what the problems are with my edits. I already gave reasons for them. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I had responded to all your planned edits that I did not agree with, with the exception of the videos available on the internet. I have re-worded this now into footage shown in TV documentaries. I hope this is okay. Andries

I was by the way quite irritated with the removal of the word "boys" that was backed up by reputable sources. Andries 18:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, we should take the edits one step at a time. Reverting the article and making other edits is counterproductive. You said you did not agree but you did not refute the edits. Do you agree to take these issues to mediation? Yes or no? You need to publicly state your willingness to take this to mediation. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, where has Beyerstein's "extensive literature study" been published by reputable sources? I noticed you now are not claiming it is a book, which you originally claimed. Beyerstein's material was first published in the Indian Skeptic magazine and later published by Premanand in paper form (taken from the Indian Skeptic Magazine). We already discussed the reputablility of the Indian Skeptic magazine in mediation. Are you claiming that the Indian Skeptic is reputable? SSS108 ^talk-email 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Beyerstein's study has been published by Indian CSICOP which I believe is reasonably reputable. Andries 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, where is this referenced at? And for your info, the Indian CSICOP's publisher is Premanand. Once again, this info was taken from the Indian Skeptic magazine. Are you willing to discuss the reputability of the Indian CSICOP in mediation? Yes or no? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. The Indian Skeptic is not the same organization as Indian CSISCOP. Andries 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim they were. Their publisher is the same, however. That publisher is Premanand. Once again, you need to reference it. So when you said "fine with me", are you agreeing to mediation? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with mediation. The Indian CSICOP is affiliated with a large organization i.e. CSICOP. I do not know whether the Indian Skeptic is affiliated with a larger organization. Andries 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough, the wikipedia article states that the Indian CSICOP publishes the Indian Skeptic magazine Ref Once again linking it directly to Premanand and not some sort of independent org. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is decided that Beyerstein's study of miracles is not a reputable source (which I continue to disagree with) then I will continue to refer to it because Nagel wrote in her 1994 article published by the Free University of Amsterdam that Beyerstein's study was convincing in its dismissal of supernatural stories. Andries 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(I will be moving all the Trouw related discussion here)

I am also disputing the following Trouw Reference. Not only was this article translated by an Anti-Sai Activist, there is no way to verify it. It does not have a link to it's original source and I cannot accept Ever's translation. Also, I don't know what this article has to do with the alleged fall in numbers of adherents. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit that the translation by the Dutch American Ella Evers is not good as I already wrote. The article states that there have been many defections "Hundreds of Dutch devotees did the same tearing up all the Sai Baba photos off the walls and throwing out his books." Here is the Dutch original [[3] Andries 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on citing the article, Andries, then it must also be stated that an anonymous person using the pseudonym "Leo" claimed that ""Hundreds of Dutch devotees did the same tearing up all the Sai Baba photos off the walls and throwing out his books." I am also uncertain if these types of comments are notable. You fail to divulge crucial facts that can rightly be interpreted as blatant misrepresentations and distortions of the truth. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think that these comments are informative. Andries 21:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I believe you are thoroughly biased. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my intention to remove the following: "In Nordic countries and the Netherlands, numbers fell after 2000, including an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw." (along with the Trouw reference). I suggest we remove this reference for several reasons: 1) It misleads readers into thinking that there is a reputable souce that supports the claim of defection among Nordic Countries when it does not, and 2) This claim is based on an anonymous person's comments and not factual data. If Andries disagrees, then I suggest we take it to mediation and hopefully Andries will answer the outstanding questions that he has thus far refused to answer. I also ask that if Andries does not want to participate in mediation, or answer the mediation questions, instead of maintaining silence, he needs to openly declare that he does now want to participate. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not voiced by Leo (whose real name I know by the way) but by the journalist Koert van der Velde. The article by Mick Brown wrote that the Central Group in Sweden closed down. I changed Nordic countries into Sweden. I admit that I made the mistake of thinking that many defections is the same as less followers. Which is not necessarily the case as many new followers may join, though I do not believe that this is the case in practice at all. Andries 21:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The thread posted in this section were previous comments, Andries. They are not current comments. I already discussed this on the relevant mediation page. I am not talking about Mick Brown. I am talking about the Trouw article. It did not factually document anything. So your use of it as a factual reference for factual data is misleading and deceitful, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the journalist Koert van der Velde did probably not do an extensive empirical study on the nr. of devotees in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the journalist wrote the statement of many defections down as a fact and was right. Andries 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose re-wording the statement about the defections in the Netherlands in the article as attributed opinions to the Dutch journalists of the two newspapers. There was another newspapers that also who wrote about the defections in the Netherlands. Andries 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Andries, are you willing to accept the introductory paragraphs as I edited them, or are you wanting to revert it? Do we need BostonMA to resolve our differences with this section or not? It will save him much time if we agree on the edits. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not accept current lead section, that again should not be an introduction, but a summary of the whole article. Andries 16:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree to have BostonMA mediate this topic? SSS108 ^talk-email 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, if BostonMA's wants to. We give him so much work. I think it is better that we first both make good proposals. My preliminary proposal of the Wikipedia:lead section is at User:Andries/Sathya_Sai_BabaAndries 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (amended for clarity)

Unfortunately, I find your proposal ridiculous. I stick to the edit I made. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Andries, I like the way you agree to mediation to resolve our differences of opinion, regarding the introduction and other things, and then you botch the entire process by reverting the article back to your version before we have even engaged in mediation. You don't even allow the mediator a day's respite to respond. But when it comes to you, you make everyone wait weeks. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)