Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 2

message: Apart from the evaluation by Brian Steel hereabove, there is another evaluation of this article
:"This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Sathya Sai Baba". This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer). This article has been edited due to Anti-SSB Activists who refuse to allow editing to the Original Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba."
::from saisathyasai.com Please do not link to this article because it contains slanderous ad hominem attacks on the critics of SSB. 
Andries 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another evaluation of this article for the interested reader

message: Because of Gerald Joe Moreno's insistence of adding his version of the controversy in this article, I am afraid that I have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines very strictly. I will remove all information from personal website, (like the ones by Priddy and Steel) and only from notable books, media articles and academic sources. The only recent detailed academic source are the articles by Alexandra Nagel, who had published a 1994 article in Dutch in an academic magazine and later an unofficial Dutch article for the university of Amsterdam. An English updated version of her article is A guru accused. I do not think that the strict adherence to Wikipedia's policy will improve the article but I feel that there is no other fair way to keep Gerald Joe Moreno's endless rationalizations and intellectual dishonesty out of this article, though I have to admit that he occasionally makes a good point. If Moreno succeeds in getting his website cited as a reliable source in a notable media article or academic article then, of course, Moreno's view can be added to this article, as per the Wikipedia policy. I will also attribute all opinions and if I can't will remove them as per Wikipedia policy. Andries 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, Andries. I will proceed and delete all references to ex-premie.org, the personal website of John Brauns. --ZappaZ  05:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No more info from personal websites, no more unattributed opinions

message: I removed the doubtful statement from the intro that all is free of charge. This is claimed but disputed and hence not a fact. I also inserted the undisputed notable fact that high ranking policians visit his ashram. Unfortunately there are very few undisputable notable facts about SSB. Andries 18:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed doubtful statement from the intro

message: *"It is believed by some that Sathya Sai Baba is the guru Alanis Morissette refers to in the song Baba on her second album Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie" There are several religious figures and gurus called Baba. Who believes this? This has to be attributed. Andries 22:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SSB in popular culture: unattributed opinion and doubtful statement

message: The "external links" section is ridiculous. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Does any contributor volunteer pruning this down? Otherwise I'll try a solution by axe. --Pjacobi 01:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. It got so bad I removed them all a few months ago, but they've grown back. -Willmcw 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think there should be a limit of five links per viewpoint. Five links directly for Sathya Sai Baba and five links for the contra & pro arguments. The other links should go under the relevant sections on "allegations against sathya sai baba". There should also be a limit on "media articles". We need to establish bounds because I am going to post favorable media articles about Sathya Sai Baba. If Sai Antagonists are allowed to post 10, 15, 20 negative media articles, I will find 10, 15, 20 positive media articles in return. This page is totally imbalanced and unfair. It's time for better moderation. Thaumaturgic 03:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: okay let's make 5 pro SSB links, 5 anti-SSB links, three other links, and ten media articles in total. Andries 22:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Everyone should please self-moderate. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia we give majority point of views majority space. Salon.com and the BBC favorably and extensively cited critics and ex-followers, so this is a strong indication that they agree with the ex-follower point of view. Andries 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Read the articles and watch their documentaries and it is clear that Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Danish Radio, and Tanya Datta of the BBC are sympathetic to the critics and ex-followers. Magazines and TV stations rarely have official opinions. Andries 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not claim to be Mr. Accuracy. Yes, I made mistakes in this article and other articles in Wikipedia, especially when I rely too much on my memory. But I do continue to hold the view that the BBC, Danish Radio, and Salon.com wrote articles or showed documentaries that could in fact have been made by ex-devotees. Andries 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where are the factual inaccuracies? In the case of SSB, an ex-follower (Alexandra Nagel) published academic articles of very good quality. It is okay to use that as a reference, according to Wikipedia guidelines. The allegations are so many that they do not fit into this article. Andries 09:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Joshua Kermogh and others, if you want the alleged factual inaccuracies removed from the article Sathya Sai Baba then I invite you to make references for every sentence and attributed opinion in the article. This is tedious but it has yielded good results in other articles in which I was involved. (I cannot find any factual inaccuries in the article). Thanks. Andries 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: #It is basically irrelevant for Wikipedia what the POV of a person is. What does greatly matter is that Alexandra Nagel managed to get her articles published in academic sources. Andries 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: #The first section should contain a summary of the whole article, so moving the critic paragraph is wrong. Andries 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The first section is a summary of the whole article according to Wikipedia standards. You have the right to write a short attributeda rebuttal to the allegation in the summary of the article, but do not assume that Gerald Joe Moreno speaks on hehalf of all devotees and proponents. The most important fact is missing that is that the SSB and the SSO advise not to react on criticisms. Andries 20:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course, I can speak for your viewpoints because I know them so well. In general viewpoints have to be attributed. Please try to read more on the way to edit Wikipedia articles. I do not have the time to explain you everything here. Andries 21:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No,Gerald Joe Moreno does not have the insider knowledge about the sexual abuse that I have. If he showed more honesty and fairness in dealing with the allegations then ex-devotees might be willing to give him more private, sensitive confidential information. I fully agree with what Basava Premanand wrote on this topic. Andries 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Andries, why do you believe that Sathya Sai Baba's gender should be kept under "Practices"? Again, you are trying to insert your viewpoint in every section. Thaumaturgic 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want that, though there doesnot seem to be good place about the gender change in the article.  Andries 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: She has published an article about SSB in an academic journal. Andries 01:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So she can be cited as a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: wrong, please try to learn how Wikipedia works. If you do not believe me ask it on Wikipedia:Village pump. Andries 02:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Andries try to include the issue of Sathya Sai Baba's gender under "Practices"?

message: There was no detailed rebuttal? Where is it? The only thing that Swami ever said to Goldstein when he asked about the Young/Rahm case of sexual abuse is "Swami is Pure". That is not a detailed rebuttal.  Andries 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fine then we agree that SSB did not give a detailed public response and can write that. Andries 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please note that Conny Larsson will probably may sue this Polish devotee for slander as soon has Conny knows the name. Andries 01:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What was the response of Swami?

message: Andries, why do you keep trying to introduce the information about Jens Sethi in the "Devotees and Proponents" section? Sethi is not a devotee. His story is mentioned, almost verbatim, under "Skeptics and Opponents". If you wish to elaborate on his story, you should do so under "Skeptics and Opponents". Make sure you add the part about why he was "treated like a criminal": He was caught, by the police, distributing a negative paper about Sathya Sai Baba to foreigners. Thaumaturgic 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: because that is relevant information for the subjects that Moreno discusses, the legal complaints. As I said, Wikipedia is usually organized per subject, not per point of view. Andries 04:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The repetition is an unfortunate but predictable consequence of your insistence to structure the article per POV instead of per subject. All information about affidavits should be grouped together. Same for criminal complaints. There is proof that Sethi made and affidavit, after all Alexandra Nagel and India Today are reputable sources wrote it.  Andries 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote "If you want to write about Moreno's attacks, you should do so under the skeptics section." So you want me first to write the complaints by critics about Moreno and then in another succeeding section introduce Moreno's writings? Clearly the structure you propose is flawed. Andries 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do ask for moderation and tell the moderator also that Gerald Joe Moreno's personal website is quoted and cited neither by academics and the media. This is in contrast to opinions to critical ex-devoteesof, like David Bailey in the Times,  Hari Sampath and Glen Meloy in India Today and salon.com, Basava Premanand by the BBC etc.  Andries 04:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have already requested moderation but received no replies yet. Andries 04:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where is Moreno cited? The source and the main reference for followers are the words of SSB. Once again, Wikipedia gives majority space to majority views as per the Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. Basically it does not matter what the media and academics say: Wikipedia reports what they say using the best sources available. Ask experienced editors if you do not believe me. Andries 11:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In general I do not have a problem citing the devotees view, but Moreno's obscure personal website is so full of distortions intellectual dishonesty and endless hairsplitting that he does not deserve to be quoted here. For example, he fails to understand that followers, like Alaya Rahm, can retain their public face of devotees in spite of having private doubts after being sexually abused. How can you convey this sensitive information to other devotees who constitute your complete social life and in the case of Alaya Rahm his family? I had problems with this myself and entertained privated doubts while remaining a public face. I have no intention to rebut all his endless distortions here or elsewhere. He simply does not deserve to quoted as per Wikipedia guidelines. Andries 11:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I only rebut Moreno here because you insist on quoting him extensively in violation of the Wikipedia: NPOV guidelines.  One the reasons why ex-devotees do not trust Moreno with testimonies is because he lacks empathy as can also be seen about his (possibly willful) lack of understanding of the Rahm case. Andries 15:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please understand that Steel was quoted by Alexandra who published articles in academic magazines about SSB. None of that is the case with Moreno. This is how Wikipedia works, like it or not.  15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jens Sethi already discussed under "skeptics and opponents" section. Andries being redundant.

message: I admit that I made a mistake with regarding Al Rahm's response to Moreno. I accidentally mixed up the introductory comments by saiguru webmaster to Rahm's e-mail with Rahm's own words. Thanks for pointing that out. Andries 16:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake by me regarding Rahm's response to Moreno

message: I think the annotated bibliography in three parts by Brian Steel is an invaluable tool when writing about SSB here or elsewhere 
#Part 1: Items of a scholarly or academic nature or provenance
#Part 2:Work Critical of SSB and his Mission by non-devotees (including ex-devotees)
#Part 3:A Basic Bibliography of Works about Sathya Sai Baba by the Sathya Sair Organisation and his Devotees
Andries 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the websites of Steel and Moreno is that it is in the first case difficult to spot inaccuracies, paranoia, or lack of common sense. In the latter case it is easy. I do admit that however that Moreno occasionally makes good points. Andries 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice to anyone wanting to make substantial changes to the article

message: In the Seduced program, Jed Geyerhahn claimed he was 15 years old. However, on both the BBC Radio program and the Neural Surfer article (Geyerhahn's handwritten account), Geyerhahn claimed he was 16 years old. Therefore, two out of three accounts, Geyerhahn claimed he was 16. In none of these 3 testimonies, did Geyerhahn ever mention being kissed by Sathya Sai Baba. Geyerhahn added that part on David Lane's SaiDebate page. Andries should stop trying to change Geyerhahn's age to 15. The article with the most merit is Geyerhahn's detailed, handwritten testimony, which he personally submitted to the Neural Surfer. In this testimony, Geyerhahn said he was 16 when he had his first oiling experience.
Thaumaturgic 15:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The case of Jed Geyerhahn

message: There is a reference in this article about Basava Premanand being a "ex-devotee" of Sathya Sai Baba. This is not true. On the Secret Swami program, Premanand said he had been investigating Sathya Sai Baba since 1968 and went public in 1976. Premanand joined the Sai Organization, not as a follower, but to get close to Sathya Sai Baba and expose him. Therefore, he was never a "devotee" and should not be described as a "ex-devotee" Secret Swami program text Thaumaturgic 17:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a follower according to his own assertion between 1968-1974. Andries 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess that Premanand was interested in SSB's miracles as so many people were and are and wanted to investigate them. He did not say that he was a wanted to expose him since 1968. Andries 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Premanand wrote that he was a follower between 1968-1974. Andries 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: okay, he did not say it but he wrote it. This can be stated as such in the articel. 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: okay, I have re-worded it by saying that he said that he has been investigating SSB since 1968 and that he wrote that was a member of the SSO between 1968-1974. I hope this is okay. Please do not forget that SSB asserted in the booklet Sandeha Nivarini that a prospective follower should investigate the guru before accepting him. This may have been exactly what Premanand did.  Andries 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basava Premanand was never a follower of Sathya Sai Baba

message: It appears that Andries is trying to deceive us. Moreno sent me the link to the screencapture where Andries Krugers Dagneaux (the same Andries who is trying to modify this page) said he was the "news, webmaster and contact" for the Netherlands Exbaba site. Just recently, Andries removed "news and webmaster" and left only the word "contact". He also blocked the site from archive.org. Reinier Van Der Sandt was never listed as a webmaster to the Netherlands ExBaba site. It appears that Andries removed this information so he can force his point of view and claim he has nothing to do with the Netherlands Exbaba site. Andries, why did you remove that information? Moreno is creating a page about this as we speak and I will post the link shortly. Thaumaturgic 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was never the webmaster of exbaba, except for a very short period that lasted about one week. Information was not updated on exbaba partially because of my neglicence and because I moved and did not change my address due to some problems I had there that may have been caused by my critical stance against SSB. It happened to be changed by webmaster Reinier only recently because I requested that in the wake of a legal threat against exbaba which is unrelated to Wikipedia. The official formal decisions about the contents of the website is determined by a network of former Dutch followers of which I am an active member. Again, as so often Moreno, sees deception where a more plausible explanation is available.  Andries 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is the webmaster for the Netherlands Exbaba site?

message: Andries, where is the proof that, "The warning was placed as a result of the notarized petitions by several alleged victims even though they have never filed formal charges in India." Show me the references. The US State Department makes no mention of "notarized petitions".  Where did this information come from? Thaumaturgic 00:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I had my doubts too about the sentence that I did not write. Andries 09:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US State Department Warning

message: Andries, why are you trying to remove the following quote, "Moreno asserted, with references, that there are Christian, White Supremacist, Rationalist and Atheistic movements against the Indian Guru." This happens to be a major point. References: Christian & White Supremacists. This article cites numerous Rationalists. These rationalists are Atheists, including Premanand. Why are you trying to remove it? It is an entirely valid point, from a Devotees and Proponents point of view. Thaumaturgic 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the statement "with references". I find his references flimsy and if we write this then I could write "with references" at about 50 other places on the article. In other words, this statement has no added value and should be omitted. Andries
Then you should have removed "with references" instead of removing the entire comment. Thaumaturgic 21:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proponents view to Christian, White Supremacist, Rationalist and Atheist movements against Sathya Sai Baba

message: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.
(Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)
Hi, I noticed there's a lot of reverting going on here. Please keep the 3RR in mind while editing, thanks!  --JoanneB 17:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reminder, since there's a lot of reverting going on here... 

message: Please note that the article used to contain many references that I had inserted but they had been removed in an edit war. Please help to re-insert them if they are still applicable. Thanks
1. Kasturi, Narayana Sathyam Sivam Sundaram Part I available online in Microsoft Word format
2. Dadlani, Sanjay K. Sai Baba Shiva or Sadhaka? and Steel, Brian Arnold Schulman's Baba - an Embarrassment for the SSO? 
3. Padmanaban, R. Love is My Form  
4. Steel, Brian More Circumstantial Evidence about SB's Date of Birth (April 2002)
5. Steel, Brian 1940-1945: the Need to Revise the Official Sathya Sai Baba Story (2004) 
6. Sathya Sai Baba/Sathya Sai Organisation (6 July 1963) http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/1963/d630706.htm
7. Priddy, Robert Information about Sri Sathya Sai Baba of India (1998)
8. http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/pages/instts/HighLearn.htm
9. Yesodharan, Devi in the India Times 
10. Indian Skeptic
11. Indian Skeptic
12  Narayana, A in the Hindu http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/04/04/stories/2002040400540200.htm 
13. Haraldsson pages 205-211
14. Karanjia, R. K. in Blitz magazine (1976) http://home20.inet.tele.dk/saibabaofindia/blitz4.html
15. Beyerstein, Dale Sai Baba's miracles: an overview (1994) 
16. Balaraman, Suresh and Sampath, Haresh Lies proved by Sathya Sai Baba's
School Record (2002) 
17.
18. Brooke, Tal Avatar of the Night
19. Nagel, A A guru Accused - Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile  (August 2001)
20. 
21. 
22. Bailey, Faye and David et al The Findings 
23. 
24. Evers, Ella (2000)
25. Meer, Matthijs The truth will prevail...a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment, Published in Dutch magazine Spiegelbeeld  (October 2000) 
26. Badaev, Serguei The Story of my disqualification (March 2001) 
27. Gallagher, Terry Disillusionment - a letter to the Bailey's  
(obsoleted references) 28. Bradsher, Keith  in the New York Times Sathya Sai Baba A Friend in India to All the World  (December 1st,  2002) http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Sri-Sathya-Sai-Baba.htm
29.(obsoleted references) Steel, Brian Sequel to a Controversial New York Times Article About Sathya Sai Baba
30. SBS Australia http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=547
 (obsoleted references)31. US State Department Consular Information Sheet India http://travel.state.gov/india.html
32. Vajpayee, A.B., Prime Minister of India; Bhagawati, P. N., Former Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of India; Ranganath Mishra, Ranganath, Chair Person, National Human Rights Commissioner of India,Formerly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India et al Sri Sathya Sai Baba, A Living Legend, An embodiment of love for all mankind 
33.Sathya Sai Baba (25 December 2000) and Jealousy root cause of evil (3 July 1993) http://www.sathyasai.org/search/volume26/sss26-25.pdf (PDF file).
34. (obsolete reference) Bible Matthew 7:16.
35. Sathya Sai Baba (23-11-1968) http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/1968/d681123.htm
36 Sathya Sai Baba Sandeha Nivarini http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/askbaba/sandehanivarini/sandeha01.html
Andries 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old references

message: :I read that the Dutch Church minister, Tove Fergo, after the screening of the TV documentary on SSB wanted to revoke legal recognition of the SSB movement in Denmark because the law states that a religious group cannot endorse acts that contradict generally accepted morality. This failed becaue there was no conviction against SSB for pedophilia, according to the Danish Secret Service. In response, a human rights group reported the Church minister to the police for failure to apply the same standards for the Catholic Church for which there are convictions of pedophilia. 
I have read this on a bulletin board and not in Danish newspaper because I cannot read Danish. Any help would be appreciated.
Andries 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Government response in Denmark

message: Regarding: "Several prominent devotees and officials of the Sathya Sai Organisation have confirmed that Sai Baba regularly takes down boys and young men's trousers and oils their genitals." Who are these "several prominent devotees and officials"? Besides Thorbjørn Meyer and  W.G.J. van Dijk, where are the direct references to where "several prominent devotees and officials" have stated that SSB takes down trousers and oils genitals? I would also like to see the reference where Thorbjørn Meyer specifically said this. The words that are being attributed to Thorbjørn Meyer came from Robert Priddy. Thorbjørn Meyer did not make mention to genital oilings. 
Also, I will also begin to reference Devotees and Proponents viewpoints on Moreno's site. Multiple links are being given to Sai Antagonistic sites, I see no reason why I can't reference Moreno's points under that section as well. Thaumaturgic 00:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the prominent follower Jorgen Trygved admitted this on Danish national TV. Andries 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About Oiling: References Disputed

message: Regarding the reference: The European Commission answered a question of a member of the European Parliament about the accusations of sexual abuse of childeren on October 1, 2001. This incident happened 4 years ago and nothing resulted from it. To maintain factual accuracy, the result to the Parliament question needs to be stated. Thaumaturgic 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: European Comission Reference Incomplete

message: Rick Ross has a website that lists critical articles about this person, but note that a disclaimer on Ross' website states that (my emphasis):
:The information within The Rick A. Ross Institute archives has been collected to offer the public a resource concerning groups called "cults," controversial organizations and movements. However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy.
So, unless a direct mention from Ross that "accuse him of being a cult leader who uses mind control, and propaganda and who has created a personality cult.", that addition is not factually accurate and needs to be removed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is widely accepted. Even Gerald Joe Moreno wrote that he received such a treatment. Andries 07:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Please do not present Moreno's conclusion as fact. thanks. 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I do that in the case of Jed Geyerhahn? Andries 23:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I will try to re-read it but I found Moreno's article on the subject unconvincing. Andries 00:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jed Geyerhahn

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 fresco ≈ t • @ 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR warning 

message: Can we remove the internet petition out off the article? This seems to me like a detail in the whole controversy. Andries 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because an internet petition is from an encyclopedic view not notable, I think. I would like outsiders to comment on this. Andries 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason I added information to petition controversy was because the article started talking about a petition without any introduction or background information, so that must have been unintelligible for the average reader. Andries 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In wikipedia we generally include information that readers may find notable or interesting, and I doubt whether readers find this notable or interesting. To me, it seems like a minor point in the whole intense controversy regarding SSB, especially taking into account that several governments are involved.   Andries 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot imagine that there is one reader who will find the section of skeptic and opponents not notable and interesting. The internet petition is not notable for outsiders, I think. It is however important and notable for people like me who were intensely involved with SSB and suffered from the consequences. Andries 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a minor issue in the article though because it occupies only two sentences, so I will not keep nagging. Andries 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Petiton

message: It would be good if when we mention media articles as sources, if we can specify if these are op-eds, or actual reporting by the media outlet. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that any op-eds are used as a source in this article. Andries 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in Salon.com reads very much like one. Care to send a message to Salon.com and ask? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they confirm in an e-mail to me that it was an op-ed (which I do not believe it is) then we cannot write this in the article because an e-mail is not considered a reliable reference, according to the standards that your quote here extensively. So I do not see the point in sending an e-mail to salon.com. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media articles and op-eds 

message: Despite being asked to provide some input to the discussion here, I didn't manage to allocate time to this task. But I can provide a link to new proposed policy page about Biographies of living persons, a fallout of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (and some more similiar cases). Note that there are two different drafts:
* Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
* Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
Additional discussions can be found on the wikiEN-l archives.
Not only you have a look there for guidance here, perhaps you may also want to provide the difficulties exeprienced here, as an input to the policy drafting.
Pjacobi 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I amended the latter proposed version to reflect that questioning of extraordinary claims that may be perceived as defamatory by this person or his or her followers do not have to be sourced to highly credible sources, but that normal standards apply then. Andries 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I will discuss your edit on that temp page, but note that you have an incorrect understanding of what libel is. Read Wikipedia:Libel.≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangentially related 

message: SSB's is the most prolific miracle worker of the 20th century and I think his miracles that have been investigated (by e.g. Haraldsson, Beyerstein and Premanand) from various angles deserve a separate section, including positive and critical views. Andries 13:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please STOP linking to Moreno's defamatory webpages. I will ask whether linking to highly defamatory webpages are allowed on the talk page in Wikipedia. Errors, by Moreno are for example he asserts that Reinier van der Sandt is a fundamentalist Christian because Simonis writes that van der Sandt left the group. Reinier is not a fundamentalist Christian. Of course Simonis has reason to assume that Reinier is an ex, but the reason I think Reinier wrote that letter was because of the involvement of a Dutch priest, Bertus van Schaik, now an ex, in the SSB movement. Andries 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Critics of SSB are not public figures and scrutinizing their private lives and psychological problems is inappropriate and serves no useful purpose. Besides many people join charismatic groups because they have some psychological problems or unfulfilled psychological needs (according to the psychiater Marc Galanter).  Having some psychological problems at some time in their lives is not enough reason to discount the critics' testimonies. Can you imagine that before being able to serve as a testimony in court you are disqualified because you had some psychological problems at some time in your life. This is just one of many cases where Moreno writings lack empathy and common sense. Andries 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Some high ranking prominent followers of SSB have been criticized by former followers because of their refusal to investigate the very serious charges against SSB and their unquestioning continuing promotion of SSB. That is very different from writing or suggesting, as you do of me, that I am a hash user. The latter is completely unrelated to the SSB controversy and can hence be classified as an ad hominem attack. And an untrue one too, because it was just a copy of my Wikipedia user page that was automatically copied on a regular basis. Andries 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another mistake by Moreno  on that webpage "American Family Foundation (a radical, fundamentalist Christian site). " Andries 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I suggest a seperate section about SSB's miracles