Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 8

message: Just curious where a reference to 6 time Emmy Award Winner Rod Serling's "Mysterious Miracles, Vol. 3 - Man of Miracles: Satya Sai Baba"  can be placed in the article? Any suggestions/comments? SSS108 talk-email 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section For Movies

message: The article's lead is way too verbose. As per WP:LEAD (my highlight):
:"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
Suggestions on how to make this lead compliant with the Manual of Style, are welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section is four paragraphs long which strikes me as in accordance with the guideline. Andries 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's assume good faith, shall we? The lead is too verbose and too detailed. It needs to be a concise summary of the article itself. Either you or Andries should be able to do it. Give it a go, and if it does not work, other editors will surely let you know.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the sandbox: User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox SSS108 talk-email 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SSS108, can you please explain why you chose to violate WP:Lead by reverting back to a lead section that contains five paragraphs instead of four? This was one of the complaints very clearly voiced by Jossi. I did not omit charity works in the lead section, in contrast to what your above comments suggested. Andries 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, I am still waiting for one good argument why you think that your conscious revert to a version that violates of WP:Lead in spite of complaints by Jossi is okay. The important question is not so much whether somebody followed the right procedure but whether an edit makes the article better. The answer to the latter question is that my edit made it better while yours made it worse. Andries 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is still way too verbose, in any case (current version and SS108 sandbox version). Aspects of his birth can me all moved to the "History and origins", beliefs can be summarized in one short sentence. Same applies to service projects, organizations and criticism. Basically, a short summary of each one of the main sections in the article is what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose following the flawed structure of this article in the lead so I oppose summarizing the main sections of the article in the lead. Andries 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, forget about the lead for now, and focus on fixing the article first. When the article is in good shape, you can then proceed to develop a lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not out of the blue. I noticed that Jossi's complaint were justified. I am still waiting for your answer to the question that I asked months ago why you very selectively copy just one of the responses of the devotees to the allegations i.e. "Anti-Hindu"? Why not summarize all the responses by saying that SSB said that people are bribed and that devotees either deny the allegations or assert that SSB must have a good reason for what he does. Andries 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If I remember correctly, you were the one who added the "Anti-Hindu" part in the lead. Jossie said that the lead needs to be decreased in size, not increased. It appears you are intent on increasing the lead's length rather than decreasing it. The point you want to make can be made under the relevant section in the body. SSS108 talk-email 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I have objected many times against your insistence of only mentioning the "Anti-Hindu" response of followers in the lead section. Why is the "Anti-Hindu" response more important than other responses and more important than SSB's response? You did not give an answer. You only reverted.  Andries 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is far too verbose.  You want something short and eye-catching.  Don't make us read 65 sentences to figure out what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I came in in the middle of Wjhonson's edits. I will wait to see the final result. SSS108 talk-email 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always believed an article's intro should be short and to the point.  You should be able to get the message in one breath.  Now the article has a brief intro to who he is, a picture a table of contents.  People don't have to read all sorts of verbage just to understand what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's lead 

message: Edit wars accomplish nothing. If there are disputes about content, place an RfC. Note that the ArbCom does not get involved in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Filing an RFC for this case is not in corresponce with wikipedia:dispute resolution, because this case has already undergone mediation. The next step after mediation is arbcom where I will thus file this dispute. Until arbcom has given its verdict I intend to re-insert the salon.com as a source. Andries 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I filed a request for arbitration here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_request_nr._2 Andries 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You are mistaken, Andries. ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be you a right, but I will re-insert the references to salon.con  until there is a clear majority in the Wikipedia community that says that salon.com is an unreliable source. This is not the case at the moment. There is a clear majority that says that salon.com is fine as source: many articles use salon.com as a source incl. living people. Check e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com Andries 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You have yourself argued that and why salon.com is permissible as a source. Salon.com is itself a reputable source, so it is irrelevant if and where salon.com is cited. Andries 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? Please point to me where WP:RS or other relevant policies say that being published on the internet makes something less reliable? There are all sorts of reliable sources with only a web version. JoshuaZ 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, you either have a bad memory, or you are a sloppy writer, or you are liar when you write that you "never argued that salon.com was permissable as a source.". Here SSS108 wrote that salon.com was fine as a source during mediation User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Salon.com_as_a_Source. Andries 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A) Not relevant all that matters is that there are reliable sources which are just webbased. My point was that that claim is not justified. But if you did want examples of that otherwise - the Panda's Thumb  has been treated as a reliable source for negative information about intelligent design proponents (see for example the article William Dembski). JoshuaZ 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean. You are talking about the site and not the book by Gould "The Panda's Thumb" (which I am familiar with). Those links are not permissible by Wikipedia because panda.org is a blog. Someone violated Wikipedia's policy by including those links. See RS Section SSS108 talk-email 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually no. Discussions on WP:RS and elsewhere have agreed that PT constitutes a reliable source since it doesn't suffer from the problems that would normally make a blog unreliable. First, everything on PT is extensively vetted by the various contributors. Second, the writers of PT are known, well established scientists. So it isn't treated as a blog. The bottom line is that by neither precedent nor logic is a websource inherently unreliable and material which is only on a website can be cited even when it is negative and potentially libelous. JoshuaZ 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Arbcom does not rule on reliable sources. Editors do. You are looking at two editors who have no history on this article at all (myself and JoshuaZ) telling you that you are 100% wrong regarding the reliability of salon.com. JBKramer 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree wholly. We are completly immune from any legal repercussion using Salon as a source. They are reliable. Every uninvolved editor who has reviewed this is in full agreement. JBKramer 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do  not editwar 

message: To involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little to discuss left. Andries 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but that is not an excuse to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then  what should we do? Andries 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That is already in the article. Andries 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] Warning 

message: I moved this section (that was originall the lead section) from the article to the talk page, because I think that it made the article worse for the average reader. Please try to add this properly referenced information to the article if it is not yet there. Andries 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article to the talk page

message: I will file a request for comment, because I continue to disagree with SSS108. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#Inclusion_Of_Irrelevant_Articles for discussion. Andries 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of the legal battles about the name [[Sai Baba]]

message: See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#Inclusion_Of_Irrelevant_Articles
:In favor of inclusion: Andries
:SSS108 wants to exclude this because he states that it is irrelevant.
:I am in favor of including this, but only so long as it is in the "controversies" section. HeBhagawan 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Inclusion of a legal battle regarding the used of the name [[Sai Baba]]

message: :In favor of listing: Andries
:Opppose listing but prefers linking to the list: SSS108
:Oppose listing; better to link to the list. HeBhagawan 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this proposal is about. Please give examples. Ekantik 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A separate section on books by Sathya Sai Baba could be made, but limits for the number of books and feature only the prominent ones. The current book list for the article is way too long so it needs to be shortened to prominent titles. Ekantik 02:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not about what Andries wants or doesn't want and I wish editors here assumed good faith in each other. Prominent books refers to a list of say, five positive books and five negative books, this should equalize the the controversy and give fair view to all. Ekantik 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. List of books by Sathya Sai Baba

message: See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#How_to_proceed_.282.29.3F
:Initially proposed by Andries and later independently proposed by Pjacobi
*Support: Andries, Pjacobi
*Oppose: ?
*Keep the section on miracles separate from the section on controversies. In the "miracles" section, describe the miracles according to what followers of Sai Baba believe. In the controversies section, give the viewpoint of the people who disbelieve. HeBhagawan 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. Structure: making one section of the miracles and its controversy

message: Immediately proposed by Andries when Thaumaturgic introduced this subsection, but opposed by SSS108 which led to an edit war
See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#How_to_proceed_.282.29.3F
*Support: Pjacobi, Andries
*Oppose:
There was originally a separate page for the controversy and allegations and Andries was the one who vehemently refused to summarize the allegations and controversy on the main page and use the separate page for the controversy. Now, however, Andries wants a separate page for the controversy. One can only wonder why? I would not agree to this unless the controversy is summarized in a paragraph or so on the main page. I will not agree to what Andries originally had, which was 2 pages dedicated to the controversy, i.e., making the full case for each on both the main page and a separate controversy page. SSS108 talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an official template. I would like to see Pjacobi sign his own agreements instead of having Andries put his name here. And the people who opposed the long list of books included several other editors Andries. Nice to see how you selectively choose names to mislead others with agreements/disagreements or whatever you are trying to accomplish here. SSS108 talk-email 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4. Structure: making one section of the controversy and responses by followers

message: Reading abit about the Salon controversy, it appears to be about the bit where it is alleged he has supporters in high places in India who prevent anything being done about him. There appears to be a suggestion this is unique to Salon. However I distinctly remember hearing the same allegations in a documentary a few years back (don't know when, probably sometime 2002 or later but not after BJP lost/Manmohan Singh became PM). I don't know who made this documentary or whether it would be considered a reliable source but it seems to me there is at least one other source for these allegations Nil Einne 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nil Einne, not only are the allegations of "cronyism" between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists entirely true, it is also true that Andries (former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Contact And Supervisor" for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet) fully conceded that the BBC was sympathetic with and supported an Anti-Sai agenda. Many critics boasted about participating and being prime players behind that documentary. As a matter of fact, you will notice that Andries recently added the reference to The Guardian article by Paul Lewis. Needless to say, Anti-Sai activists are currently boasting (on the internet) about being behind this article as well (claiming prior knowledge going back 6 months). Although none of these findings are allowed on Wikipedia (due to the policy on no original research), the Anti-Sai agenda behind all this media is well known as they boast on their achievements whenever they get a chance. SSS108 talk-email 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making was about alleged cronyism from the Indian government on behalf of Sathya Sai Baba. If you wish to discuss cronyism between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists, please do so under a different topic. Nil Einne 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of cronyism 

message: To involved editors that have reverted three times already: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] warning (2) 

message: I have noticed that there are several mentions to Kasturi's books in this article that pertain directly to Sathya Sai Baba's biography/hagiography. Does this mean that Andries is willing to allow other citations from Kasturi's books in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's biography/hagiography? It is strange that Andries does not want to include biographical information about Sathya Sai Baba from Kasturi, yet cited Kasturi when it came to information that advances his Anti-Sai POV. And before Andries comes back saying it is okay to only take "teachings" material from Kasturi, the material in question is specifically about Baba's biography and not his teachings (scorpion bite, virgin birth, etc.) and it is attributed to Kasturi. Either we can use Kasturi for biographical information or not. So which is it?  SSS108 talk-email 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hagiographical sources cannot be used for a biography unless backed up by indepependent corroborations or when contradicted in others sources. Hagiographic stories about SSB's youth and life are a significant part of the beliefs and practices of the SSB movement and as such can be used for the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The same applies with your selective citation of LIMF, where you left out the explanation given for the alternative birthdate from it. SSS108 talk-email 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kasturi

message: I made a new request for peer review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Please do not attack reviewers. Andries 14:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New request for peer review

message: Andries, when did you obtain written permission to duplicate the copyright-protected Sai Org logo on Wikipedia? That image is specifically copyrighted (Ref) and you made no mention of obtainting their written permisssion? Supply the text to their written permission or I am removing it. SSS108 talk-email 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a fair use expert, but I do not see why we should take the SSO's retrospective demand seriously. As long as the image :Image:Sathya_Sai_Organisation_official_logo.jpg is used in a context describing the SSO then it is fair use, I thought and still think. Andries 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of Fair Use is that the image may be used in an article about the organization, but not in an article about SSB.  Of course I'm not a lawyer.  --BostonMA talk 01:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BostonMA, I think it can also be used in a section in this article describing the SSO. Andries 11:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BostonMA is correct about fair use. As the article about the organization was merged into this one, it could be argued that the logo can be added to illustrate the section. The problem is that the logo was uploaded by Andries without permission, and fair use and copyright should be respected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sathya Sai Logo

message: ;dispute - statement by involved editors:
*For me, this is a no-brainer. Andries (a critic of the Indian guru) is citing quotes from a fellow critic's compendium, attempting to bypass referencing the quotes to their original book sources. I say reference the quotes to the original book sources and not the compendium (which is not the original source for the quotes to begin with).
:*The following is an example of Andries reference: "Steel, Brian "The Satya Sai Baba Compendium: A Guide to the First Seventy Years" (Paperback) Weiser Books (February, 1997)  page 205 that in turn cites the book by Shakuntala Balu "Living Divinity" London Sawbridge 1984 page 40 Note: Steel refutes his own older writings on his homepage."
:*I say the reference should look like this: "Shakuntala Balu "Living Divinity" London Sawbridge 1984 page 40, "
:*See    SSS108 talk-email 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All what is needed is one editor to confirm that the Shakuntala Balu book contains that quote.Once an editor confirms that, there is no need to use an interme4diate source. That simple. So if an editor wants to quote directly, go to the library, get the book and confirm the quote. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Then what is the problem? Refer the quotes directly to the sources and not to intermediate sources.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy&diff=88892382&oldid=88441042 RFC Summary]

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review#Yannismarou_3 I am slowly implementing some of the suggestions. Thanks user:Yannismmarou. Andries 11:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link does not reveal any relevant information. The following link does:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba
SSS108 talk-email 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review comments by Yannismarou

message: Andries, please take your edits one at a time. When you make such confusing edits, I can't sift through them all. So please make your edits about The Guardian first, then move on to other edits. I have information to add from The Guardian article even though Anti-Sai Activists are currently boasting on the internet how they were the one's responsible for it and predicted the article's publication 6 months ago. SSS108 talk-email 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SSS108, You should restore good contents during or just after you give a revert. Andries 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian Article

message: Yeah, Wikipedia tries to take all sides of an issue into account, and cites as many sources as possible, but a little bit of my respect for Wikipedia dies when I see phrases such as the one that describes the number of Sai Baba adherents. It says that he has between "6 million and 100 million" adherents... I don't see how the people who said 6 million could accidentally miss 94 million, or the people who said 100 million could really blow the numbers that far out of proportion. Maybe we could find a more definitive source and agree on a number?
(BTW, the thing about a little bit of me dying and all of that was a joke)
The other thing I wanted to say was that I have no idea who Sai Baba is. I read the first paragraph, and was so overcome by how cumbersome it was, that I gave up and went home. Go to a GOOD article, and see how their introduction is written. What has happened in this article happens in a lot of religion-related articles- the first paragraph is so dense that I have no idea who this dude (no offense) is. This usually happens because of combined editing by NPOV people and supporters/followers of the religious figure in question. A good example of how this paragraph could be structured(IMHO) would be:
Sathya Sai Baba is a ____. He is also the head of ___, and has been involved in _____. He has written/contributed/appeared in _____. He has also raised some controversy because of ______.
If I saw a paragraph written like this, then I might actually have an idea who this guy is, and Wikipedia would have succeeded in its goal to make the world a little smarter.
Thanks,
Arjun Sharma
:I agree with Arjun's comments. Regarding the number of followers, my guess is that the difference of 94 million people is due to which people are being counted as followers. It may be that there are 6 million members in his organization or on his mailing lists, and there are 100 million people who are followers in the sense that they generally agree with some or all of his teachings without belonging to his organization. My point is that there may not be a single correct number, so the appropriate way to deal with it is to put the different ways of counting followers in a footnote. HeBhagawan 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the numbers of followers between 6-100 million, I see no solution for it because that is what the sources say. If you ask me, one million at maximum would be closer to the truth. And I agree with HeBhagawan that the answer to the question who is to be counted as a follower is not clear and that this one of causes of the widely divergent numbers. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is true that the a lot of information is cramped into a few sentences which may be wrong, but the other side of the coin is that this is an encyclopedia in which we try to convey as much relevant information as possible. I noticed that other encyclopedias are also dense with information. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of adherents? and a more general complaint

message: SSS108 has given "context" to Kester's statement by writing that Kester did not mention her sources and that she was critical about SSB. I have some understanding for this but this can be done for other statements too. I mean revealing bias and context should applied consistently. For example, we can change the following statement
:"SSB said in a speech that people tell lies about him because they have been bribed."
:into
:"SSB said in a speech in which he praised his own deeds and in which he was completely critical about his detractors that people tell lies about him because they had been bribed without mentionings sources."
Will this improve the article? 
Thanks in advance. Andries 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I would write: "SSB said in a speech in which he praised his own deeds and in which he criticized his detractors, that people tell lies about him because they had been bribed. He did not mention details about these bribes or the provenance of that information."≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you both agree, then why is the ridiculous clause "without providing sources" still in the article? savidan(talk) (e@) 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for referring me to the ArbCom. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving context in the wrong way?

message: I'm just trying to improve the writing style of the existing material in this article and SSS's reversions have been making it a little difficult.  The sentence in question is currently of the form:
*"X wrote an aritcle. This article was wholly critical of Y, in which X expressed the opinion, without mentioning any sources, that Y is a good example of Z"
And I tried to rewrite it to say:
*"X wrote an article which critized Y as Z"
I'd be glad to discuss the wording right here. The first version unecessarily confuses the text and makes it less readable. The first problem is the use of "wholly critical." It's unclear at what point criticism becomes "wholly critical"; it's really not a sliding scale. "Wholly" is just an emotive adjective that doesn't add any content. The reader doesn't need to be made aware of the fact that an article is "wholy critical"; Wikipedia is not a book review and does not need to make these judgements. Second, "without mentioning any sources" is original research at best and point of view pushing at worst. Someone does not need to mention sources to give their opinion. Being as the content of the article is summarized in the next sentence, the reader should be able to judge for themself on both of these counts. 
My proposed wording should be obvious given the above. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you example is not clear. It does not take into consideration that the article is wholly critical and this bias needs to be divulged. SSS108 talk-email 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out in my previous post, my version does use the word "critized" and thus does not imply that X is a neutral observer of Y. However, the substance of the criticism should be allowed to stand for itself. For example, "The Baker Report was critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy" is better than "The Baker Report was wholly critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy." I think that my version makes it clear to the reader that X is a critic of Y and allows them to discover the substance of the criticism. To go furter, in this case, and use the adjective "wholly" is essentially original research because it purports to present "wholly" as the evaluation of Wikipedia of the article in question. This is unecessary; Occam's razor applies to writing about controversial subjects as well. If the substance can be communicated with fewer emotive words, it must be. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well,  at least we agree that word has to go. You also haven't disputed the "without citing sources" thing yet. That would leave:
*In 2003 the journalist Sacha Kester wrote an article about spiritual seekers and gurus in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. This article contained a section wholly critical on Sathya Sai Baba in which Kester expressed the opinion, without mentioning any sources, that Sathya Sai Baba is a good example of a guru who is a swindler.
However, I think that we should combine these two sentences. Specifically, I think using an active verb ("criticized") is better. The only relevant context from the first sentence seems to be that the article also addressed other gurus. The link to De Volkskrant in the footnote should be adequte:
*In 2003, Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus in De Volkskrant, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a good example of a guru who is a swindler.
I think this can be improved further by leaving the link to De Volkskrant to the footnote. Also, since its already clear that SSB is a guru, the relevant claim made by Kester is that he's a swindler. Hence:
*In 2003, Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a swindler.
Then the next sentence explains this. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So your objection is that its only one sentence? I'd work on the rest of the article if I could! I didn't know it would take all day to talk about a sentence. These sentences should be combined because they are packed with info that is not directly relevant to SSB to the point that it slows the text. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Savidan, this is almost exactly the same thing I was saying earlier on this talk page and my edit was similar to your original edit. It would be excellent if you could assist with the entire article so as to improve it with reference to well-sourced factual statements that make good reading. ekantiK talk 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Great. Then I'm going to make these changes then move on to the rest of the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unecessary reversions 

message: I suggest we merge this section with the controversies section as they all pertain to the controversy and the one paragraph that does not pertain to the controversy has already been mentioned in the article SSS108 talk-email 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliamentary, governmental and political issues and responses

message: Savidan, regarding your removal of the merge tag for Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation, I suggest you read up on the past Mediation discussion. That section was specifically tagged due to the disproportionate amount of space dedicated to controversial material. In mediation, a suggestion was made to incorporate material back to the main page. Please find out the reasons for these tags before you remove them. It is something that needs to be worked on. SSS108 talk-email 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why the merge seemed appropriate from a dispute resolution standpoint. However, that article (by its title and its contents) contains material that is not directly relevant to Sathya Sai Baba's biography. I think its important for there to be such a sub-article. It's certainly a better compromise than omiting source material or stuffing this article full of the info. This would be like trying to fit Christianity into the Jesus article. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Merge Tag

message: I've seen SSS try to use this phrase three different times to describe three different sources. It is clear to me now that any criticism of the Baba will warrant this epithet. I propose a moratorium on calling any source "wholly critical" based only on the opinion of SSS. I want to see it discussed on the talk page, and some consensus developed on the nature of the source, before the same tired truisms are tossed into the article again. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article by Koert van der Velde in Trouw was not "wholly critical". Andries 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even one word that is relatively neutral in the article would be enough to make the adjective "wholly" factually false. Wikipedia is not in the business of determining what percentages of articles are critical. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, Van der Velde simply neutrally described the scandal and its effects without taking a position. If do not agree that describing a scandal in a neutral tone is "wholly critical" or even "critical". Andries
Oh, I edited that sentence before reading this discussion to read in better English, sorry about that. Please feel free to modify what I did with it if necessary, obviously frowning on "wholly critical" of course. ekantiK talk 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wholly critical"