Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 3

message: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already discuss edits before reverting but we do not come any closer. Andries 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Untrue, I made a completely new version of the article by removing all references to homepages, both critical and apologist. That is not a revert. Andries 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you try to re-write the section without violating Wikipedia policies? Andries 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, you were blatantly violating Wikipedia policies. May be me too in the past but only a bit. Andries 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Warning 

message: I suggest that the bulk of the "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" section be merged with the Allegations against SSB page.  The current page can then have a summary, say a few paragraphs or however long it needs to be, which summarises both allegations against SSB, the responses by devotees, and the counter-response by ex-devotees (and if you wnat very briefly the counter-counter response, though obviously this can go on forever)
Also, this current talk page is much too long - how about archiving it and starting a new one?  M Alan Kazlev 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alan. That was exactly my proposal above. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Allegations section with Allegations page

message: I have listed this article at Wikipedia:Third opinion It seems that in spite of extensive discussions here, Thaumaturgic and SSS108 and I are not coming a millimeter closer. Andries 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already third opinions from M Alan Kazlev and from me. But I agree that more editors taing a look would be benefital. This article is in shambles, reading more as a pamphlet than a bioagraphy. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I followed most of your suggestions but my edits get reverted. However I cannot expand the biographical part because I do not have reputable sources for that part.  Andries 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion requested 

message: Thaumaturgic and others, please restore references after a revert. References have repeatedly been removed in revert wars. I have no intention to do all the work. Next time I may simply give a revert to a better referenced version, regardless if the revert is from a version that is better in other respects. Andries 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please restore references after a revert

message: I suggest a "neutrality disputed" tag be placed at the top on the Main Page of the SSB Wikipedia Article, just as it is done for the Shirdi Sai Baba page. I'm surprised it has not been done so far.
SSS108 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Disputed Tag

message: Having observed this discussion for more than a month, and given that the dispute is very much between two editors, I would suggest request mediation. Mediation us a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. Read Wikipedia:Mediation. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem in mediation as long as there is prior agreement after all factions agree with the person volunteering as mediator that the decision of the mediator, whatever that will be will be respected. Andries 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was aware that mediation does not have a binding effect, but it will probably take a lot of time and effort for the mediator and all other participants and hence I am unwilling to have the article mediated unless there is some strong indication or proof that the decisions of the mediator will be respected. Andries 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As meditation does not carry a pre-binding condition, what you are saying is that you disagreeing with mediation. In that case, please state it above, after your name. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I request is a promise in advance of all particiants that they will  follow the decisions of the meditator. I mean, what sense does it have to do a lot of effort when there no indication at all that this will change something? Andries 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one issue that the mediator can address as the first order of business: set the level of expectations and get a sense from the parties about their willingness to compromise and agree to a desired outcome. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I agree with mediation. I hope there is a good volunteer though. Andries 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have a problem with the ignorance and lack of experience of contributors SSS108 and Thaumaturgic with Wikipedia in general and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. They should study the policies and guidelines and contribute to other articles too before editing a controversial article such as this one. All of their relatively few contributions to Wikipedia are to Sathya Sai Baba. In contrast I have more than >10,000 edits in Wikipedia and am well aware of most policies and guidelines. I have the impression that they simply do not believe me when I write that their edits blatantly violate Wikipedia policies. And they oppose to edits without referring to any policy and guideline. Andries 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the first one to complain about it just 5 minutes ago. Give me some time to correct it please. Andries 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked the references at the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and there are some references to articles or testimonies only published on the internet. But most of them, e.g. Robert Priddy, Nagel, Bailey etc. have also been treated in the media, books or scholarly articles. I admit that there is still a lot to improve with regards to the reference in that article, like 99% of the articles in Wikipedia. Andries 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: can you please discuss problems with the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba at talk:Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and not here to avoid confusion? Thanks. Andries 18:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, most of the references on the article Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are to media articles or scholarly articles, so I do not see a problem. Again, could you please explain referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines why this is wrong? Andries 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no Wikipedia policy that limits the links to a certain website to a maximum. At least I am not aware of such a policy. Where is it? In contrast there is a policy that says that all opinions have to be attributed and verifiable. This is exactly what I have tried to do, though I admit that the verifiability must be improved to remove non-reputable sources. Please take into account that both Steel and Priddy have had their books about SSB published and that Bailey has been extensively quoted in media articles. I may have violated the policies of Wikipedia a bit in that article but never so blatantly as you do here. Andries 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If Moreno is allowed to quote extensively from his homepage then I am also allowed to quote extensively from my future homepage. Exbaba is not my homepage, but the website of the former Dutch followers of SSB of which I am one of the members. Only a very small fraction of the exbaba website was authored by me. Andries 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Where do I distance myself from that website? Yes, I am affiliated with that website, but it is not my homepage though. Andries 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I did not make that claim. The webmaster of exbaba made that claim. Andries 17:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I never tried to distance myself from the exbaba website. I have always admitted that I am affiliated with that website. Andries 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Exbaba  has never been a website that is de facto or de jure used as soapbox for my personal opinions, unlike your website. Andries 17:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it supports my opinion about SSB, but I have limited influence over its contents. Andries 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I could explain to you the somewhat complicated and chaotic details, but the problem is that you always use and distort everything that other people write due to your ignorance and bias. I cannot even write you an e-mail without it getting published on your website on which you add all kinds of suggestive, and sophists and ignorant comments to it. I would rather speak to you by phone. Why don't you call me? Andries 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is that your writings are often based on misunderstandings that could easily be solved if you did the effort to ask people in advance. But the problem is that people have lost trust in your fairness so they would rather not write to you at all. I have no reason to believe that you will interpret anything that I say about SSB ex-followers fairly because you already assume that they are liars and deceitful. And you interpret all their words in such a way that supports your point of view. If you have such an assumption and have shown such behavior in the past then you can expect that people would rather not write to you anymore. Andries 19:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, fellow Wikipedians for settling my personal feuds here, but I cannot e-mail Gerald Joe Moreno/SSS108 because he will publish every e-mail on his homepage and re-interpret and distort it in such a way that it supports his basic assumption that the critical former followers of SSB are deceitful and dishonest. So I have to do it here. His greatest mistake that he shows in his writing is his ignorance and lack of understanding of Hanlon's razor. Also he seems to believe, from reading his website, that when articles by former followers are not 100% balanced and scholarly neutral then they are deceitful and dishonest. I wonder whether Moreno considers 99.9% of the world's population deceitful. Andries 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I do admit that I have something to hide, that is the names and the addresses of people who told me private confidential stories. Andries 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer your question about the limited influence that I have on the contents of exbaba. This is because I am not the only  person who determines the contents and I am not the webmaster, as I have already stated many times. There are some aspects that of exbaba that I do not like (e.g. the charicatures, and the black band over SSB's eyes) and I have repeatedly complained about them, but to no avail. Andries 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What am I to do when Gerald Joe Moreno publishes all my e-mails with all kinds of dishonest comments? I am sorry about it. I cannot talk with him another way. Andries 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Please note that this is not a discussion forum. I would suggest that now that you have all agree to mediation, that all of you take a couple of days to cool off until such a time a mediator is willing to take your case. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What am I to do when Gerald Joe Moreno publishes all my e-mails with all kinds of dishonest comments? I am sorry about it. I cannot talk with him another way. Andries 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a discussion forum

message: FYI, a request for mediation was filed on 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, many thanks for your effort. I really appreciate it. (this is not something I can always say about your contributions to Wikipedia :)  )Andries 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I had written that only one person (Gerald Joe Moreno) who is mentioned in the current version of the article is neither named in scholarly nor media articles about SSB. That was incorrect. Another person is Robert Todd Carroll. Andries 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction of previously made statement [[Robert Todd Carroll]]

message: This page is provided to discuss the article not for other purposes such as personal confrontations and off-topic debates. Please remain on purpose. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you need to adrdess personal matters please use email, USENET or a discussion forum. Thanks.  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jossi.  I'll shut up now  :-)  M Alan Kazlev 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stay on purpose=

message: A good step would be to start moving all references to the new site format. This will allow much easier editing and will enable us to check the vairous sources provided throughout the article. The format is very simple. Inline with the text, simply add
:Author, name of reference, (year), page number, Publisher, ISBN A quote from the sourve if needed, (pleasde keep it short and on purpose..
This site format will automatically generate a properly numbered ref in the Reference section. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New site format 

message: Andries, where you are getting the title, "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom"? I just had a discussion about the title being wrong and not only did you ignore it, you just edited the main article and changed the correct title "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom" to "The Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom". Where are the references to support that that is the correct title? Perhaps a picture will help: Reference
SSS108 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake, I got confused by your recent complaints here about the title. Andries 12:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that the only function of this talk page is to make suggestions for improvement for this article. If you make complaints that are unrelated to the current version of this article then it is likely that people get confused. Please label off-topic remarks as such. Andries 12:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: off topic, and what does this prove? Do you think that I would risk the political career of my cousin for nothing? Clearly, it is an indication of my sincerity, degree of conviction of the reliability of my sources, and concern about the seriousness of the matter. Andries 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shambles In Sai Baba's Bedroom?

message: This article so 'not-encylopedia' and obviously very biased. Statements like
:"Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics." 
are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia should only state facts, not opinions.
Then the section "stance by devotees" makes no sense whatsoever!
And look at the section books written by saibaba. He is not even a writer! This obviously adds unnecessary text to scrolling.
Plzzz I beg some wise people here to ban such religious zealots who misuse wikipedia for their own thing. reasonit
:Hmm, I agree with the generalization that I had my doubts about. And I do not know whether SSB has really written the books that are claimed so. I personally have strong doubts, but normally we assume that the claimed author is the real author unless there is proof otherwise. Andries 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonit, I happen to agree with you about removing the list of books. Actually, Andries was the person who added the list of books. Thaumatugic removed the list and provided a link to the Vahini series and this was not approved by Andries. Again, a devotee was not responsible for adding the list. An Anti-Sai Activist was  I am fully aware you never pointed out a particular person. I never claimed you did. You said that the "religious zealot" who wrote: ""Because of SSB's extraordinary claims, his popularity, and his reputation as a prolific miracle worker, he was and is one of the favorite targets of criticism by rationalists and skeptics" should be banned. As I rightly pointed out, it was not written by a "religious zealot". All the things you are complaining about, and attributing to devotees or religious people, are not being done by them. They are being done by Andries, a skeptic of SSB. So place the blame where it rightly goes. SSS108 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are you waiting for?? BAN THEM

message: I suggest we start a new section about SSB's bibliography (on the main article) and attribute the entire section to Kasturi's Hagiography. It is undeniable that Kasturi is a reputable reference (as he has been cited in a Religion Encyclopedia and other college references). This would provide a solution to writing a bibliography and reconciling it with Andries demand of distinguishing the material as being taken from a hagiography. So, does anyone object before I invest the time and effort?
SSS108 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that Kasturi is a reputable reference for the beliefs and practices section, not for the biography, because Kasturi's hagiography is authorized material about SSB. Apart from that I do not understand your proposal.Andries 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please give an example? I do not understand your proposal. Andries 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would this source not be considered for inclusion of biographical data? You could state that the works are a hagiography, if you have a reputable source that describes it as such, or if it is stated in the said book that it is such. Otherwise, I do not see a problem. If there are other sources that challenge some of the biographical data in that book, you can describe these as well. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to hold the opinion, as I already stated, that using hagiographical material for a biography violates the spirit of the Wikipedia policies. Andries 18:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Section 

message: I think that the arcicle should state as fact that SSB is a godman for the following reasons
:1. Two sources state so. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. One source gives only one example i.e. SSB Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 3. The assertions are not contradicted by any notable source. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 4. SSB fits all the characteristic of a godman as described in that article. Andries 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't SSB often say in his talks that he is God?  I remeber when i was a devotee (well, in a manner of speaking, i was never a full-on devotee) it was common knowledge that he was (considered to be) an avatar.  e.g. the Howard Murphett books, which i read (and which influenced me to travel to India to see SSB).  I know SSB was often quoted as saying "I am God and you are two, but you don't know it." (or something along those lines).  Hasn't he also says that he is Shiva and Shakti, that he is Krishna reincarnated, etc?  I am not a SSB scholar, but surely it wouldnt be hard to find an actual quote from SSB where he proclaims that he is an avatar.  M Alan Kazlev 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already in the article and if it is not by accident then it is true that it is very easily added. Andries 18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Godman]] stated as fact

message: Andries, where are your reputable sources published in notable media that SSB had sexual relation with boys? If the accounts are second hand or anonymous, they need to be stated as such.
Premanand's anonymous story is not reputable or published in notable media. Also, one needs to state how Premanand originally contended that the anonymous letter was written by a student and five years later, changed it to a father to an alleged student. Give all the facts.
Michelle Goldberg's bias was hidden from her article, but was divulged on your Anti-Sai site when she told Glen Meloy, in a personal letter: ""I apologize for not having the time to pursue every angle of the story, but I think the final piece (more than 2000 words longer than it was originally assigned) will bring much attention to your struggle. Thanks again for all your help." In reply, Glen Meloy said, "It has been a privilege to work with you and I hope the editors of Salon.com will consider allowing you to do a follow-up story on all the other leads and material that has been furnished to you." Therefore, Goldberg's hidden bias should be divulged.
Also, switching the links to SaiGuru.net is deceitful. The articles on SaiGuru.net were duplicated from your Anti-Sai Site. Changing the link from one Anti-Sai Site to another is ridiculous. Your Anti-Sai Site was the source for the material and was simply duplicated on SaiGuru.net. That's like having Lisa create a website, transferring my content to her site, linking to it and then saying it is okay because it is not on my site!
It is funny that you refuse to allow anyone to quote Kasturi relating to SSB's biography, although Kasturi is published in notable references, and yet you go around citing sources that have not been published in reputable media and see nothing wrong with that. SSS108 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, I noticed you are heavily editing the article again. We have an opportunity to discuss our differences of opinion in mediation. Why are you not answering the relevant section about Premanand: Premanand As A Source? I think we should get the opinion of the mediator to resolve the issue instead of debating it among ourselves. What do you say? After all, you and I were actively seeking a mediator and a neutral opinion. Now that we have a mediator and a neutral opinion, you are delaying giving answers. If you have time to heavily edit the article, one would think you would have time to answer the mediation questions. SSS108 talk-email 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether the Indian Skeptic is a good source, the word "boys" is also sourced by Michelle Goldberg's 'Untouchable' article in salon.com Wikipedia says nowhere that only primary sources can be used. Secondaray such as salon.com are fine too. Andries 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: undocumented and unconfirmed according to whom? Not unconfirmed or undocumented accourding to Michelle Goldberg's article in salon.com Opinions have to be attributed according to the policy. I admit that you had discussed removing "boys" in the talk page, but I had referenced it and excluding salon.com as a source with the argument that it is a secondary source and not a primary source shows so much ignorance of the way Wikipedia works that I could not take it seriously. Please remember that it is the duty of editors to study the policies and guidelines, especially when editing the controversial articles. It is not my duty to teach you the basics of Wikipedia policies after I have shown you were to look. Andries 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, secondary sources are okay to use according to Wikipedia. And everybody with common sense and empathy can understand the reason for anonimity in this case. I followed all very clearly all Wikipedia policies (referencing and providing reputable sources) in my edit and I cannot see what there is left to meditate in this case. Andries 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The accusations were never stated as fact. I do not see the problem. Glen Meloy and others showed her the evidence that she found convincing and she wrote boys. Andries 20:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did not, but I believe it, but is irrelevant. We are not seeking the truth it, but we report. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion does not make any sense. I can understand that there is a lot of gray area where mediation is useful, but in this particular dispute can be no doubt that the word "boys" is justified by reputable sources for which references are provided. And may be in this dispute and in this dispute only, I think that we can go directly to the Wikipedia:arbitration committee and bypass mediation. Andries 21:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because mediation is only necessary and justified in case of doubt, problems about sources etc. In this case there can be no doubt: I followed all policies and what you do is simply disruption of the article and violation of Wikipedia policies. I have added a note to the mediation page about this dispute, not as a new subject to be mediated, but as a complaint about your behavior. Andries 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: View Discussion About Andries Complaint About SSS108's Behavior SSS108 talk-email 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not holding up the process, because the inclusion of the word "boys" is backed up not just by Premanand, but also by Michelle Goldberg's salon.com]'s article. It is basically an unrelated dispute. Andries 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not aware that any question are asked about salon.com I do not understand why the backlog in answering questions is related to this dispute. Andries 22:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any other claims made in any of the SSB related articles which are based upon Indian Skeptic as a source?  If so, please answer the remaining open questions on the mediation pages.  --BostonMA 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are no claims in any of the SSB related article based upon Indian Skeptic as a source with the possible exception of the study of SSB's miracles by Dr. Dale Beyerstein, but that study also appeared in a private publication and was referenced by Nagel in her 1994 article for the Free universtity of Amsterdam. Andries 14:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, I gave you a misdirection.  I would like you to respond to the open questions anyway.  A number of the questions have applicability beyond the issue of Indian Skeptic and beyond Premanand as a source.  Even the questions that are Indian Skeptic specific, I believe are important, as they will help to provide a point of reference, a point of comparison for determining where the threshold lies for a source to be reputable.  (So please answer questions about Indian Skeptic even if you believe them to be moot.) It is my fault that the directions I gave were not what I actually wanted.  --BostonMA 21:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boys?

message: It is true that I insisted on having the list of books by SSB included in this article. I think thought that it is common and standard to list the published works of a person. I may be mistaken in this. I admit that for most people this will be scroll down content, but this is supposed to be a reference article, so I thought and still think that this list is important. Any comments? Andries 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should do what Thaumaturgic originally did, and which Andries reverted: Keep the "Books by Sathya Sai Baba" section and provide the link to the Vahini series, instead of listing all the Vihini titles and providing no link to the Vahini series. Vahini Link SSS108 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is supposed to be a reference article and an end result of e.g. a google search. Andries 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A short list of the more prominent books should be sufficient. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I never had the article under control and most of the many external links were added by others. Andries 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Check it better. It was not just me who added these many external links, but several contributors, mainly anons. Andries 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries, there is no "even if this is true". It is true. The point being that when it comes to listing an opposing POV, you see no problem in citing as many links as it takes to Anti-Sai Sites. Once a link is proposed to be added to a site that you see as favoring SSB, all of sudden, you start making excuses and saying things like the "article is not supposed to be a mere collection of external links". Several people have opposed such a long list of books on the article. Instead of adding one more relevant link, you are insisting on keeping the long list of books. This proposition is a discussion on improving the article. So far, you are the only person opposing adding the link. SSS108 talk-email 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of books by SSB?

message: Check this: http://www.the-week.com/25nov27/currentevents_article10.htm It is a quite recent article on "The Week" with many POVs from different protagonists. Hope it is useful as an example of NPOV material. It was the cover story for the November 2005 issue. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossie, material from that article was already cited and the link was also included in the "Media" links section. SSS108 talk-email 00:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some material suitable for the article? 

message: There is a misstatement on the page about Haraldssson that is going to have to be corrected. The editor wrote:
"The Icelandic psychology professor Erlendur Haraldsson who did not get SSB’s permission to study him from nearby has investigated his miracles and clairvoyance, using the testimonies of his (former) associates. Haraldsson wrote that the biggest materialized"
This blatantly wrong as Haraldsson visited Sai Baba SEVERAL times and had private interviews on every visit.
Haraldsson was with his associate Osis whom Baba materialized a ring for. Baba also materialised a gold-plated Rudraksha bead for Haraldsson. Regarding the experiments Haraldsson said, 
"Nevertheless, I could understand the reluctance of a religious leader of millions to submit to experimental protocol designed by people of different beliefs and cultures. After all, no one asked the Pope to go into a labratory, before his holiness could be trusted." (Modern Miracles, pg. 10, revised and updated edition �1997)
This is a VERY good point. After all, no Christians are demanding laboratory experiments to prove Christ is the Son of God either. Freelanceresearch 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be this should be re-worded into Haraldsson did not get SSB's permission to study SSB under controlled circumstances. Fact is that it would have been very easy for SSB to show Haraldsson his miracles under less ambiguous circumstances which is something that SSB refused. Andries 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement about Haraldson

message: moved to mediation page with some responses --BostonMA 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Standstill

message: There is absolutely no reason the Parliamentary info has to be referenced on anti-Sai sites as they can be referenced from the Parliament website. The problem is the anti-Sais are NOT telling the whole story regarding what happened in Parliament regarding the Sai Baba issue.
Here is the FULL documentation with link references:
The Parliament and Sai Baba 
Sai Baba 
Mr. Colman: � To ask the Secretary of State for 
the Home Department 
(1) how many representations requesting that Her Majesty's Government 
take action against Sai Baba he has received in the last 12 months; 
[136849] 
(2) if he will make a statement on the activities 
of Sai Baba involving 
UK citizens in (a) the UK and (b) India. [136848] 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: � During the last 12 months the Home Office has received eight representations from members of 
the public about Sai Baba, of which seven were from overseas. In addition four 
representations have also been made by my hon. Friend. The Government's 
position is that the members of this, and any 
other religious  organisation, are free to follow their own  doctrines and practices 
provided that they remain within the law. 
[136849] 
6 Nov 2000 : Column: 109W 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sai%20baba&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=Sai%20Baba&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=%22sai%20baba%22&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=01106w30.html_spnew6&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001106/text/01106w30.htm 
**************** 
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 8 
Nov 2000 Travel Advice 
(India) 
Mr. Colman: � To ask the Secretary of State for 
the Home Department if 
he will issue guidance to UK citizens travelling 
to India about visiting 
the Sai Baba ashram. [136850] 
Mr. Hain: � I have been asked to reply. 
The FCO issues guidance for visitors to India 
through its Travel Advice 
Unit. This information is also available on the 
FCO web-site 
(www.fco.gov.uk). 
We have no specific guidance for UK citizens 
visiting any of the Sai Baba ashrams at Puttaparthi (Andhra Pradesh), 
Bangalore (Karnataka) or 
Shirdi (Maf harashtra). The police at 
Puttaparthi, the focus of celebrations to mark Sai Baba's birthday on 23 November, have assured our Deputy High Commission at Chennai (Madras) that preparations are already under way to meet the demands of the 
large congregation expected 
at the ashram. 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/semhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=sai%20baba&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=Sai%20Baba&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=%22sai%20baba%22&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=01108w10.html_wqn7&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001108/text/01108w10.htm 
**************** 
SAI BABA AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN 
26.02.2002 
Colman, Tony 
That this House, mindful of the many accounts and witness statements of the sexual abuse of the male children of devotees by the Indian guru Sai Baba, calls upon the Foreign Secretary to use the travel advice for 
India page of the Foreign Office website to issue guidance to British families intending to visit the ashram of Sai 
Baba about the possible danger to their male children of individual audiences with the guru. 
Signatures( 43) 
Status 
Colman, Tony 
Mahon, Alice 
Llwyd, Elfyn 
Cox, Tom 
Dobbin, Jim 
McDonnell, John 
Cohen, Harry 
Cook, Frank 
Cryer, Ann 
Etherington, Bill 
Williams, Betty 
Griffiths, Jane 
Simpson, Alan 
Jackson, Glenda 
Corbyn, Jeremy 
Flynn, Paul 
Griffiths, Win 
McNamara, Kevin 
Amess, David 
Holmes, Paul 
Hancock, Mike 
Hoey, Kate 
Knight, Jim 
Linton, Martin 
Widdecombe, Ann 
Duncan, Peter 
Baldry, Tony 
Dowd, Jim 
Doughty, Sue 
Harris, Evan 
Walter, Robert 
Jones, Nigel 
CLARK, HELEN 
King, Oona 
Tonge, Jenny 
Bottomley, Virginia 
Austin, John 
O'Neill, Martin 
Rendel, David 
Jackson, Helen 
Jackson, Robert 
Clarke, Tony 
Gillan, Cheryl 
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=21147 
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tony_colman/putney
Since Tony Colman is no longer seated in Parliament, this issue may be dead on the table, as they say. Freelanceresearch 09:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliament Issue

message: The article needs to start giving relevant information about the people and sites it discusses. For example, instead of saying "BBC", it needs to say "United Kingdom BBC", so that people do not confuse them with BBC News. They are wholly different entities. The Secret Swami Documentary was never shown on BBC News, just through the UK BBC. Another example is when talking about the "Dialog Center". It needs to be clearly stated that the Dialong Center is a Christian Anti-Cult Group. These are just a few of several clarifications and attributions that need to be made. SSS108 talk-email 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems redundant in the case of the Dialog Center. The reference already states that the author, Hummel, was/is a pastor. Andries 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hummel is not the founder. Prof. Johannes Agaard is. Andries 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that sounds exaggerated, because no information is sourced to the Dialog Center. Andries 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hummel is also a specialist in Hinduism and new religious movements. Andries 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Attributions

message: The article is still under mediation and, in my opinion does not comply due to several outstanding issues. Until this is resolved through the mediation that Andries is half-heartedly engaging in, the warning is going back up. SSS108 talk-email 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to make it clear that Andries was the person who removed the warning. Why he would remove the warning before mediation is complete is highly questionable and I ask we discuss this with the mediator before removing the non-compliant warning. SSS108 talk-email 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal procedure it that a warning is justified by an explanation on the talk page, otherwise it can be removed. Please explain the warning. Where does the article break policy? Andries 06:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Joe/SSS108, again please explain the warning. Where does the article break policy and how? If you do not explain it then I will remove the warning. Andries 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Warning