Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 5

message: Andries, I am requesting the original Dutch text from Nagel's article: Een mysterieuze ontmoeting... :Sai Baba en mentalist Wolf Messing. I want the full paragraph that contains the following section: "Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud - of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar.)" I would like it translated. SSS108 talk-email 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: “Terugkerend naar het begin: het verhaal van Sai Baba over zijn ontmoeting met Wolf Messing in 1937 op een station in Zuid-India kan nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Nergens in het materiaal van Messing wordt 1937 als het jaar van een reis naar India vermeld. Messing bezocht het land in 1927. Evenmin valt in het Messing-materiaal een aanwijzing to ontdekken dat Messing mogelijk een tweede keer, veronderstel in 1937, India zou hebben bezocht. Sai Baba was in 1927 één jaar oud of – of nog niet eens geboren (er bestaat discussie over zijn geboortejaar). Sai Baba deed het voorkomen dat Messing eerst in Rusland was en Stalin benaderde en vervolgens in Wenen Freud ontmoette, hetgeen een omkering van de feiten inhoudt. “ Andries 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: She writes that he may have been born either in 1926 or not yet born in 1927. You can state that in the article, but of course any knowledgeable reasonable person will admit that she refers to the discussion about the school register. Andries 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am removing Nagel's reference regarding SSB's second birthday User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox. Once you find reputable sources, you can re-add it. If you have no further disagreements with the introductory paragraphs, I will edit the article with the new changes.  SSS108 talk-email 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we have a reputable source that says that SSB was may be later born than 1927. I do not accept as a statement of fact that he was born on  23 Nov. 1926 when there is doubts about it. Andries 05:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is basically irrelevant where she got that year from, though I think she got it from the school register. What matters is that a reputable sources says that SSB may be born later than 1927. Andries 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I will check it, but she copiously referred to Brian Steel's writings in her article, so I think that is where she got it from. I think that the reason why she did not mention the year 1929 is because she was not writing an article about SSB, but about Messing. Andries 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of SSB's birthday is a biographical or an historical question.  What is the majority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date?  Is there a significant minority opinion among biographers and historians regarding SSB's birth date? --BostonMA 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no significant majority because there is not a single serious biography of SSB. Andries 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like professional historians and biographers, reporters for reputable newspapers are expected to check the facts which they report.  Can one discern a majority opinion amongst reporters for reputable newspapers?  --BostonMA 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The overwhelming majority of reputable sources say SSB was born on November 23rd 1926. Andries can cite only one source: Nagel. SSS108 talk-email 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The doubts about the birth year of SSB are a few years old, so that is why older materials mention the birth year of 1926 as a fact. Andries 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The document in question existed since the 1940's and it was rejected for a variety of reasons, as explained in the LIMF (Love Is My Form) book. Among the errors with this document are the recording of 10 birthdates (out of 12) as being on "July 1st". These types of school records are not accepted as valid documents for establishing a date of birth. Thaumaturgic 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The school register was not rejected with certainty by Nagel and Steel, as can be seen from their writings. Andries 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And neither Nagel or Steel took into consideration other inaccuracies on the school record, as can be seen in their writings. They only focused on SSB's information and dismissed everything else. That doesn't sound thorough or non-biased to me. SSS108 talk-email 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nagel did not write that SSB was born in 1927. Andries 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows what Nagel wrote? I am uncertain if even she knew, as she has no references to back it up. Provide us with the references Nagel used for that date. Even if she alluded to SSB being conceived in 1927, then he would have been born in 1928 (still a year away from the school record date). SSS108 talk-email 07:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Text From Nagel's Article Needed

message: First of all I would like to separate procedural discussions from discussions regarding contents. Say let's do them here Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Editing procedures Secondly I never agreed to first discuss well-referenced additions such as the Beyerstein via Matthijs van der Meer's addition to this article before making them. Discussing additions before making them contradicts the generally accepted practice in Wikipedia. Andries 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural matters

message: Please express disagreements with reasons
:1. re-add the bibliogrpahy by Brian Steel: we cannot list all books in the article, but we can add a link to Steel's list that contains nearly all books
:2. re-add books by Steel and Priddy under the section followers
:3. re-phrase the lead section to include various rebuttals. not just anti-Hindu
:4. add attribution for non-diminishing devotees in summary
:5. add Jens Sethi in summary
:6. add statement to summary from BBC website and salon.com that it is difficult to prosecute SSB in India 
:7. remove statement from US dept of state from summary
:8. rename Bibliography subsections into "books and articles"
:9. re-add Matthijs van der Meer's description of Beyerstein's study
:10. re-add statement from Mick Brown's book about discrepancy between statements by SBB about historical events and generally accepted accounts
:11. Add contradictory staments about Shiva Shakti claim to summary: the current version is now one-sided, and uses only one source
Andries 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Andries proposed edits, as they are controversial, and will revert them. I suggest we attempt to take this to mediation and have our differences of opinion resolved through a neutral 3rd party. SSS108 talk-email 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking this into mediation is a good idea. It is better to have your differences of opinion resolved through a NEUTRAL 3rd party. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I intend to make the following changes

message: I have never seen anything like these talk pages!  But i know there are ones just as bad, and indeed probably even worse if that is possible, here on Wikipedia.  I would have a nervous breakdown were I involved in this sort of mental trench warfare!  Isn't there some way that both sides can come to an agreement?  After all, there are standard guidelines for use of references on Wikipedia.  The goal, as we all know and agree, is neither to accuse nor to defend SSB (that's what your respective home pages are for), but simply to report what others say about him, regardless of whether or not one agrees with their support or criticism.  e.g. The Howard Murphett books (which introduced me to SSB back in the early 1980s) and the BBC "Secret Swami" video are equally notable and their claims can equally be included, as should all other such references.  Since one is simply reporting what these external sources say, i fail to understand the reason for this endless bickering, each side clawing for every inch of ground, and not wanting to give an inch to their opponent. M Alan Kazlev 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This goes on and on and on (and on)

message: New Request For Mediation SSS108 talk-email 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Request For Mediation

message: Hi Mr Kazlev,
For someone who is watching the whole episode from outside, whatever you have said indeed reflects the state of affairs about this page.
At the same time, you need to look at the history of this page. You can go through how the article started, you can observe the links given, the links that were given to this page from other sites etc... An observation will clearly bring about light on the way this article was placed...
You will also understand how people who try to bring about some amount of factoid to the article (forget about being pro-SSB) has been virtually banned or suppressed. 
It was after the entry of people like SSS108 that the article started getting shaped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  210.211.217.99 (talk • contribs)  15:21, May 22, 2006
:Hi anonymous poster :-)  You should sign your name at the end; even if it's a pseudonym, just so its clear who is discussing things.
:Look I'm not denying that the current SSB page is a definite improvement, and the footnotes are informative; it is just the huge amount of conflict required to get it that way.  Maybe that's just the nature of the beast; especially if you have a highly polarised and emotion-charged topic; I've noticed the Prem Rawat page is similar.  And this is just with controversial gurus; i can imagine there are heaps of fights like this all over wikipedia; politically charged subjects, craetion vs evolution, wheerever humanh beings have disagreements on their understanding things.  I was just making a humorous comment on the inefficiency of the whole process. Actually after I posted my complaint it seemed that there was much less quibbling, and more doing, so maybe it's okay anyway.  M Alan Kazlev 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining!  Yeah I thought it seemed strange that my irreverant post would make a difference! M Alan Kazlev 22:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Reply to Mr Kazlev

message: Question:
Did you know the significance of the December issue of the India Today Magazine Article which had allegations against Sathya Sai?
Answer:
The India Today Magazine December issue which had the article, cited as a source of reference when comes to allegations about Sathya Sai, was the 25th anniversay issue of the magazine.
In a world driven by impact marketing, especially when it comes to media, what better cover story than that of allegations against Sathya Sai Baba for a magazine that is known to promote the flashy  lifestyles (Hope you will go through the issues of the last one year to have a gist of the content of the magazine).
:What is your point? Are you suggesting that the India Today article cannnot be used in the article because it is too sensational? Andries 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =DID YOU KNOW

message: User 209.200.60.200 is vandalizing and wantonly editing the article. The user's ip resolves to Webair Internet Development Inc. located in New York, but also extending into Canada. Thaumaturgic 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this is vandalism, but someone who agrees with the opinion expressed by Jossi and me that a self-dismissed court case is not a reputable source for a Wikipedia article. Andries 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think that this is vandalism. I do not have to and will not "correct" edits that I agree with, such as removing references to the self-dismissed court case. I will endorse your request for mediation.Andries 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that nobody in Wikipedia has the obligation to revert bad edits.Andries 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Andries, show me how court case records are not reputable sources. You have failed, on all counts, on making any statement in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Court Records ARE reputable sources and the comment about the Self-Dismissed court case comes directly and exclusively from these court records. You are trying to remove this content because it wholly undermines your case against Sai Baba and you know it! Reverted. SSS108 talk-email 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Court records may contain simple assertions by witnesses or parties to a case. The records may be a reliable source for the fact that the assertions were made, but the assertions cannot be deemed to be true just because they are in a deposition or similar filing. -Will Beback 22:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Will. You can use the court records to make assertions on what the witnesses or deposed persons said, but you cannot make assertions to validate any claims made by other persons on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading the material added based on these court papers, I would argue that these ar cirrectly used and in accordnace with  WP policies. The text can be written an little more neutrally, though. I will attempt to do this. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only replaced the use of "testimony", as a deposition is not considereded as such (to differentiate it from testimony given in court, which is the common use of the term), and made some other small adjustments for neutrality. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that this deposition was taken in the context of a civil suit. If it was a criminal suit, you may use the term testimony, I think. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify, not to "revert" it literally, just to change the words "said" back to the words "testified" and "testimony". Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how I got into reading this, as I have not read nor do I know anything about the article in question.  Therefore, I have no interest in the particular debate here.  That said, testimony can be in civil or criminal court.  It is merely a witness statement under oath.  A deposition is testimony, but one would ordinarily refer to a deposition as a 'deposition'.  I don't know if this confuses or clarifies, but I hope it helps. MollyBloom 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a fine point, SSS108. The important thing is that what he said was recorded and can be cited in the article. I would not argue against the use of "testimony" although that term is preferably kept for testimony given in court in front of a judge, and not out of court (as in the case of a deposition in the State of California). Your call. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We generally describe depositions as depositions and testimony in court as testimony.  What is the problem with using the word deposition here? Just curious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Dismissed Court Case

message: *Revision as of 05:03, 8 May 2006 First added references to Kreydick's sworn deposition and Self-Dismissed Court Case from Alaya Rahm. These Court Record references were left untouched and unchallenged for 17 days. On the very same day that  started deleting the Court Record references, so did Andries.
*Revision as of 18:15, 25 May 2006 by 209.200.60.124: First removed reference to Self-Dismissed Court Case.
*Revision as of 18:46, 25 May 2006 by Andries (31 minutes later): First removed referenced to Kreydick's deposition.
I think this is more than just coincidence. SSS108 talk-email 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable Activity

message: Since Andries said he would accept the intervention of mediation, I made another request: Mediation Regarding The Sathya Sai Baba Article SSS108 talk-email 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Mediation Request 2

message: Andries recently edited the article with controversial edits that he agreed to wait for until mediation stepped in. Instead of waiting for mediation, he went ahead and edited the article including material that has been controverial since the time the last mediation ended. Therefore, Andries is not acting in good faith and I reverted the article. SSS108 talk-email 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As so often you misinterpret our agreements. I agreed with mediation, but I never agreed with not making edits that you consider controversial. Andries 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How can this article be subject to mediation when there is no mediator assigned? Can you please refer to a wikipedia policy or guideline or an agreement between us that you think that I break with my edits? I wil continue with my edits unless you refer to that. Andries 14:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverting without an explanation why edits are not good is not considered acceptable behavior. Please understand that there are no agreements between us or any wikipedia policies and guidelines that say that I cannot make the edits that I make, at least not that I am aware of. If I am wrong then please refer to them. If you cannot and still revert my edits without explaining why they are bad then you are disrupting Wikipedia. Andries 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And besides it is not true that the edits that I made today were all brought to be mediated. For example the contradictory claims about Shiva Shakti were never brought to mediation. Andries 14:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So what are we going to do now? request wikipedia:arbitration? Everything else is pending or has failed. Andries 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Recent Edits By Andries

message: I noticed that Andries is going to add a tag for "Guru" for the Sathya Sai Baba article. In order to maintain transparency, I am duplicating my post made on the Guru Talk Page under the topic Removal of critical websites.
I just wanted to bring to everyones attention how Andries contacted the Guruphiliac Blog webmaster and complained about an attempt to remove Sarlo's website from the external links: Reference. The relevant text reads:
:It appears there's some wacki-folks attempting to whitewash the Wikipedia of guru criticism: link 1 There are attempts to remove Sarlo's website from the external link section in Wikipedia. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 2. Press the edit button. Also there are many attempts to move or to reduce criticism and assessment of gurus. Please let the Wikipedia editors know what you think about that at: link 3 Press on the edit button. Thanks to Andries K.D. (Link: Andries) for bringing this to our attention. Now go let those lamers know you want the contrast afforded by both sides of the story rather than just being force-fed the hagiographic nonsense that passes as reliable information for some men and all sheep about the lives of gurus.
Just for everyone's info the attempts of Andries to polarize the opinions expressed in this article by contacting a person who is not only very good friends with Sarlo, but also blatantly lies about Gurus: Reference.
This type of behavior from Andries proves that he will go to great lengths to push his Anti-Guru POV by soliciting the assistance of someone who is Anti-Guru. This type of behavior also proves that Andries agenda on Wikipedia is not to maintain a Neutral POV, but to push his POV. SSS108 talk-email 15:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also clear that either Andries, or someone in his group of Anti-Guruphiliacs, is/are contacting various people to attack me on Wikipedia. Someone contacted Robert T. Carroll and gave him my name and misleading information about me: Reference. Also, a vandalizer using the IP 209.200.60.200 also attacked me using my name and citing misleading information about me. User 209.200.60.200 started deleting material the very same day Andries did: Reference (after a 17 day period of silence from Andries on the article). Therefore, there is a valid suspicion that Andries is going around contacting various people to push his POV. The facts are just too eerily similar to dismiss. SSS108 talk-email 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guru Tag Insert

message: For the record, Andries is still citing the original research of Alexandra Nagel ("Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile") on other Wikipedia articles discussing Sathya Sai Baba as recently as today: Reference. In mediation, it was established that this article, by Nagel, was never published by reputable sources or cited by notable media: See Mediation Thread About Nagel. Just more proof that Andries is secretly attempting to push his POV on other articles that discuss SSB. The list keeps building for Andries POV Pushing. SSS108 talk-email 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expected this complaint from you, but I think that you are misinterpreting Wikmipedia policies about original research. I cited the article "A guru accused " by Nagel only because she in turn cited a book that is not original research. Andries 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I explained this issue more extensively at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults and reverted your edits there because they do not follow the guidelines wikipedia:cite sources. Andries 10:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Attempts To Cite Original Research

message: Andries complained to Freakofnurture about someone (implying me) that was breaking the 3 Revert Rule: Reference. Anyone who knows how to count can see that I made 2 reverts. Not 3. More confirmed lies from Andries. See History tag for proof. SSS108 talk-email 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I did not write that you broke the three revert rule. Andries 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I spoke of you, but I did not write that you broke the three revert rule. I merely wanted to draw attention to the article by stating that disputes are completely unresolved and that as a consequence I think that the three revert rules will likely be broken in the future. Andries 12:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a clarification at User_talk:Freakofnurture#Reverts_on_Sathya_Sai_Baba_are_starting_again Reference. Andries 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Revert Rule

message: The length of footnotes is way too big. These need to be shortened to a sensible size, keeping just the material needed to support an edit, but no more. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the footnotes are shortened, it should be discussed to prevent un-necessary reverts. SSS108 talk-email 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand why shortening footnotes is important. I think that long footnotes help to verify the reader that the references and sources do not take assertions out of context. Andries 09:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If editors are not willing to reduce the size of citations I will comment them all out until such time in whioch editors will do the pruning. The current version is bordering on the ridiculous with more text in the footnotes than in the article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I understand it correctly that you want to remove all comments and expect other editors to restore some of it only because you consider the citations too long? Removing all comments would be overdoing it and I think that such an action would be highly unconstructive. Please do not expect other editors to do all the work. Shorten the comments if you like yourself. Andries 21:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the ArbCom has accepted to hear this case, I will wait until the completion of the process, before I attempt to undertake such task. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenght of footnotes 

message: Andries, regarding the citation you requested about the "hermaphrodite" issue, you were the one who wrote that. So you should be able to provide the citation since it was material added by you. As you can see, I did not edit that particular sentence: Reference SSS108 talk-email 21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove that I added that? I do not remember that I ever wrote that. I do not remember that Nagel wrote that in her article "Sai Paradox" Andries 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nagel Citation

message: By the way Andries, the moderator asked you a question is waiting for a reply. Are you going to treat this moderator with the same delays and not answering of questions as you did with BostonMA? I hope not. SSS108 talk-email 04:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your explanation, but I continue to disagree. The attribution of a fact should go. Facts should be referenced, of course, but not attributed. As so often you misinterpret policies and guidelines.  Andries 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossie, there is one big difference though. Mediation with BostonMA was voluntary because he was not an official mediator. With the recent request for mediation, we obtained an official mediator. Andries agreed to the request for a mediator and now after getting one, Andries is vacillating on whether or not he will accept an official mediator! This type of behavior, from Andries, really doesn't surprise me. SSS108 talk-email 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly... Essjay from the mediation committe agreed to BostonMA's mediation, in fact making it official. See User_talk:BostonMA#Request_for_Mediation ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Also, regarding a revert you made claiming I made an "unmotivated deletion" (Ref), I never deleted that in my edit: Reference. SSS108 talk-email 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you did make an unmotivated deletion here  You deleted without motivation the contradicting claims about Shiva Shakti incarnations of Shirdi Sai Baba and Prema Sai Baba. Andries 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think that I implied that then you are a sloppy reader. Andries 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said: '"21:19, 16 June 2006 Andries m (→Opposition, controversy, and allegations - revert edit by SSS108: an attribution is not needed and wrong for a statement of fact)" You made no mention to the date of my revert. So you are a sloppy summarizer :-) Oh, and by the way, you just violated the 3 Revert Rule. I'm on my way to report it now. SSS108 talk-email 21:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I imply that it happened today or that it happened on the same day? I did not ever suggest that. Andries 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unmotivated Deletion?

message: I gave the section "opposition" a neutrality warning because of an attribution of fact regarding what Priddy did or did not write. Only opinions should be attributed. Andries 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section neutrality warning

message: Can somebody please explain the clean up tag or I will remove it. Andries 06:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there a clean up tag?

message: Here is yet another complete distortion of facts by Andries. Refer to this post that references Alexander Deutsch. Andries stated:
:The American psychiatrist Alexander Deutsch visited the ashram of the guru Sathya Sai Baba in India and there noted that a group of young followers interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play, just as Krishna's leelas.
Andries summarization and citation is wholly and unequivocally misleading and deceptive. Let us read Deutsch's actual words and context, which is based on his trip to SSB's ashram in the mid 1970's (Andries left out the time-frame as well):
:An even more paradoxical example of rebelliousness in cult members was observable in a substantial number of Western followers of Sai Baba. Emerging from the hippie counterculture, they appeared to project their anarchic and rebellious trends on their leader and distorted his teachings which were actually quite conservative. His playfulness, seductiveness, and magic and his controversial and unorthodox postion within his own culture facilitated the projection and distortion. The holy man angrily recounted for me, in an interview, the misdeeds of the Westerners: they illegally overextended their visas; the men and women were too close to each other; they embarrassed him in front of his Indian devotees; they followed behind him in a car when he left the ashram; some women touched him; and so on. The misreading of Swami by the Western devotees is discussed further in the following section...(Following Section)...At Sai Baba's ashram, as I indicated above, the Western devotees flagrantly denied the holy man's growing disenchantment with them, which was cleary shown by his not granting them personal interviews and other indications of unfriendliness. When I told the devotees what Sai Baba had told me about his negative feelings toward them, the characteristic response was that the holy man didn't really mean what he told me, that he was telling me, a Western doctor, just what I wanted to hear, and that the whole episode was meant as a test of their faith in him. (The notion that a disconfirming event is engineered by the leader as a test of faith seems common in cult thinking.) A theological justification for their thinking was readily avaiable here too. Did not Sai Baba proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna and did not Krishna play tricks (leela) on his devoted followers?
Andries attempted to infer that Deutsch claimed that "young followers" (an age inference never suggested by Deutsch) "interpreted disconfirming events as tests of faith, engineered by the guru or as the guru's divine play". What Andries forgot to mention was that these "disconfirming events" were actually the Western follower's rebelliousness, their distortions of SSB's teachings and their refusal to accept SSB's negative assessment about them! Of course, none of this is relevant to SSB himself. Therefore, I am removing the entire reference on the Sathya Sai Baba and Guru articles unless Andries can justify including this reference that has nothing to do with SSB himself, but has everything to do with SSB's early Western followers in the mid 1970's. SSS108 talk-email 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is a minor distortion if it is a distortion at all. Andries 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Deutsch relates the interpretation by the follower of SSB's behavior to SSB's claims ("proclaim himself as an incarnation of Krishna"), so it has a lot to do with SSB. This obsveration  by Deutsch is not unique. Similar observations of non-rigorious interpretations by followers of SSB's behavior were made by Tanya Datta and Matthijs van der Meer in reputable sources. Andries 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Complete Distortion Of Facts

message: For the record, I would like to note that Andries is adding a controversial edit that was still listed as an edit to be mediated. Although there is currently a RFA regarding Andries behavior and controversial edits on Wikipedia, he is continuing with his controversial edits despite this fact. One can only wonder why. SSS108 talk-email 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Recent Controversial Edit

message: Hello And,
This was your question...
"What is your point? Are you suggesting that the India Today article cannnot be used in the article because it is too sensational? Andries 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. Not only has ProEdits (Robert Priddy) lied about Freelancresearch being banned from Wikipedia when she was not, he also blatantly lied about me and erroneously accused me deleting information on Angela's talk page View My Response. Now, ProEdits (Robert Priddy) is accusing me of having made the post above when I did not write it. It was written by 210.210.37.103. This from someone who claims that he is honest and knows how to check his facts. I suggest that ProEdits perform some remedial research before he jumps the gun and begins defaming others with his erroneous, unsupported and spiteful accusations. This is a very troubling pattern that is emerging with ProEdits and I suggest someone talk to him about it. SSS108 talk-email 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did You Know Answer to And

message: This article is the subject of wikipedia:arbitration between adversaries user:Andries and user:SSS108 Abritration is the last step in wikipedia:dispute resolution and leads to binding solutions. 
*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba main page with the following subpages
**Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence all editors of Wikipedia are welcome to give evidence
**Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Workshop
**Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Proposed_decision
Andries 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba]]