Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 7

message: I moved the list of media articles to the talk page because there seems to be agreement that listing them in the article violates WP:NOT. Most of them are suitable as sources for the article. Andries 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SSS108, you misunderstood. This policy does not apply for talk pages. I will revert your inappropriate misguided removal of talk page contents. Andries 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, which Wikipedia policy states that one can move references from the Article to the Talk Page? If it violates Wikipedia policy, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by moving the media articles here? Please explain. SSS108 talk-email 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the media links to the talk page can help you and others to insert contents from the articles into the main text of the article. Andries 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not move references only media article in the external link sections. Andries 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it easy to add contents with the list of media article at my fingertips. Andries 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have copied these to your sandbox, if that was your intention. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought and still think that this would be handy for others too. Andries 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure if that is the place to do so. The ArbCom is busy with new cases. It is now up to the community at large to enforce their decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the arbcom decisions are highly ambiguous in practical cases. Andries 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony advised me to request clarification from the arbcom User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Biographies_of_living_people. Andries 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move of Media Articles to talk page

message: SSS108, If it is on topic and not libellous then removing conments is from talk pages is inappropriate considered vandalism. SeeWikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism. Andries 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was removed because it is abundantly clear you are pushing your agenda on the talk page. If the media articles violated  WP:NOT, why are you moving them to the talk page? First you argued that the media articles should be listed here because they violated WP:NOT on the main article → Then you argued you wanted the media articles listed here for your own convenience → Then you argued that you wanted the media articles listed here for other's convenience. Your answers are hardly consistent. If it can't be included in the article, why should you include it on the talk page? In light of what appears to be POV pushing, keeping the media articles on this page is not necessary. You can move those media links to a sandbox on your own userpage if you want them, as Jossie suggested. Ironically enough, this very issue was discussed in arbitration (Reference) in which I rightly stated that you were using the talk pages to promote your agenda. SSS108 talk-email 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT does not apply for talk pages. Fact is that you violated talk page etiquette with your removal and you should revert your removal. Andries 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not remove comments from talk pages

message: With the vague assumptions that (a) SSB108 and Andries will voluntarily stay aside from the article (or be very carefull when editing at least) and (b) that the formal change re citations is accepted, we can perhaps tackle the big issues.
The first issues I would like to address are the
*very long section 0
*"Opposition, controversy, and allegations"
but cleaning this up would be major surgery involving most of the rest of the article.
For examples "Miracles and Ashrams" can be split and the different voices about the miracles presented in an unified "Miracles chapter". As is partly case now. (In the current version the miracles are discussed in section zero, "Miracles and Ashrams" and in "Opposition...".
In fact, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, I don't see any topic that should be treated in a separate "Opposition" chapter. OTOH the subchapter "Stances by devotees and proponents" is nearly completely redundant, giving just personal statements. Perhaps a good writer can summarize into two sentences, keeping all references if wanted.
Pjacobi 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pjacobi, as long as Andries stays away from the article, so will I. Regarding the citations, I agree with them if Andries does. On reference 81, regarding the travel advisory, I'd suggest linking it directly to the Travel Advisory site without a citation, as is done with the other references. I also suggest removing the "Other Websites" section. SSS108 talk-email 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to proceed (2)? 

message: Someone please redirect:
*Sri Sathya Sai Baba to → Sathya Sai Baba.
Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Regarding the re-inclusion of the media article from Salon.com, it is already listed in the references and was removed along with other media articles. If the Salon.com article is allowed to duplicated in the article, other media articles should also be included. However, these media links were removed due to violation of WP:BLP WP:NOT as discussed earlier. Please follow the discussion and history of this page before reverting. SSS108 talk-email 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The media articles were not removed because of violation of WP:BLP, but because of violation of WP:NOT. Andries 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reintroduction of media articles

message: I made some changes. I addes a link to a BBC news article (hope this falls wihin the Wikilaw possibilities), also renamed the section of comments of followers to better reflect the contents of that section, and moved the section away from 'Organisations' to practices and beliefs. Greetings, Sacca 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: some changes

message: I continue to disagree with with user:Pjacobi's edit of removing all the citations, though I admit that some were too long. Partially as a result of this removal of all citations references are being asked again for statements that were already referenced, such as SSB's claim to be omniscient, omnipotent etc. I had already referenced this some time ago as a result of user:Jossi's request for a reference for this. This creates all unnecessary work. The removal makes it also more difficult to check the contents and to edit the article. I will partially restore the citations or if this is too much work restore all of them. Others can then shorten citations that are too long. Andries 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your edits Andries. They are controversial and have not reached consensus. You were asked to step aside which you appeared to have done. Now you are re-adding your controversial edits. SSS108 talk-email 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you write about concensus, suggesting that there was ever any concensus about this? There was no concensus about removal of citations when user:Pjacobi removed them. His removal was reverted by user:Francis Schonken (who was never before involved in this article) for very good reasons, i.e. violation of Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large citations does not render an article more verifiable. Providing a short cite, as well as author, name of publication, ISBN and page number, is sufficient. There is also an issue of copyvio when citing large portions of published texts.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and agree with you and Pjacobi that large citations have their drawbacks, but they do reduce the chance and the seriousness of out-of-context citations, misparaphrasing, or selective quoting which I have been repeatedly accused of. They reduce the seriousness because everything will be cleared up with a mouseclick on the footnote. Andries 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of citation makes it difficult to verify the article

message: I am wondering how Spiegelbeeld (which Andries is trying to include in the article) is a reputable or reliable source for Biographies Of Living Persons? Spiegelbeeld is a New Age Magazine that discusses things such as yoga, spirituality, angels, mediums, channeling, crystal healing, reiki, ghosts, Atlantis, magic, UFO's, life after death, reincarnation, astrology, horoscopes and the like. How can such a magazine be used as a reputable or reliable source for Biographies Of Living Persons? Which reputable media would publish such things? It seems to me that referencing a New Age Magazine violates WP:BLP and WP:V. SSS108 talk-email 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your concern and I would agree with it if it published a pro SSB article. The article reg. SSB goes against their expected bias and that makes it noteworthy, relevant and reputable. It would be similar when James Randi made a pro-SSB statement which would make it worthy of inclusion. Andries 17:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability Of Spiegelbeeld

message: I created a sandbox that highlights the main points regarding this issue: User:SSS108/Kevin_Shepherd.
The publisher (Citizen Initiative, Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom) is not listed on booktrust's 
UK publishers. The only books published by "Citizen Initiative" (utilizing an advanced search on Google for "citizen initiative" + "publisher(s)" / "publishing" / "publication(s)") are those of Shepherd's. No other books have been published by "Citizen Initiative".
I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding "Citizen Initiative") by email and Mrs. Barringer said:
*"Sorry - have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers."
I also contacted booktrust.org (regarding "Citizen Initiative") by email and Mr. Smith said:
*"I have never heard of Citizen Initiative, but their titles – almost exclusively written by Kevin Shepherd – are listed on the Nielsen BookData database of books in print. CI also appears to act as a distributor for titles published by Anthropographia Publications (again, these books are all by Mr Shepherd), Philosophical Press and New Media Books Ltd."
Since Shepherd's books are printed by a publisher that exclusively publishes his works (not publishing other author's works), his books most certainly appear to be self-published. Therefore, this reference to Shepherd should be removed for violating:
*WP:BLP: See sections: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, Biased or malicious content, Public figures, 
**"In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided."
**"Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources?" The answer is no. 
*WP:V: See entire section: Sources
*WP:RS: See sections: Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, Check multiple sources, Issues to look out for, Using online and self-published sources & Evaluating sources
This reference should also be removed in accordance with the opinion of Alecmconroy (in response to Andries RFC):
*"Well, that's a whole can of worms as to whether Priddy's is reliable enough for his claim to merit inclusion without its inclusion constituting undue weight. Quote Shepherd quoting Priddy won't buy you any extra reliability-- if the "Priddy claims..." is just too unreliable to merit inclusion, then adding the words "According to Shepherd, Priddy claims..." won't save it. --Alecmconroy" (Reference)
Publications By Citizen Initiative
The following three books have been published by "Citizen Initiative":
*Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals
*Investigating the Sai Baba Movement
*Pointed Observations
*Other Publications. Also note that "Anthropographia" and "Philosophical" publications are other publishers that are in exclusive association with Shepherd (publishing no other books by other authors).
Information About Kevin R.D. Shepherd:
There are no online references to Shepherd's qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or university references to Shepherd (although his books have been published as far back as 1984). SSS108 talk-email 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of the informatio about the publishing house Citizen Initative, so I will re-consider my opinion on the book by Shepherd. Andries 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal Of Reference To Shepherd

message: For transparency, I noticed the following thread by Andries Ref. Once again, it appears that Andries is trying to include yet more controversial material in the Sathya Sai Baba article. I would suggest that if this is the case that it be discussed here and a consensus obtained first before attempting to include it in the article. SSS108 talk-email 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not seek concensus but instead resort to Wikipedia:dispute resolution, always starting with a discussion on this talk page. Establishing concensus when contributors have such widely divergent opinions on a certain subject is in most cases impossible. Andries 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Edits?

message: Since Andries was so insistent on removing the section about Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed Lawsuit because it was a primary source, then I would like to know why the following primary sources are being cited, violating WP:RS. 
*Primary source references:
*Former MP Tony Colman's comment to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
*Tom Sackville's concern about Educare.
*Lousewies van der Laan's question to the European Parliament.
*The US Travel advisory that does not even mention SSB's name.
Unless these references are souced to reputable secondary sources, I will be removing them citing the same Wikipedia Policy that was cited to remove Alaya Rahm's Self-Dismissed Lawsuit, i.e., WP:RS: "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." SSS108 talk-email 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources

message: Andries is yet, once again, trying to re-include the books by Steel and Priddy under the followers section when they are not followers. Their former, flowery and devotional books have since been retracted by them. I suggest Andries submit yet another RFC. He has not obtained consensus on this controversial edit that is many months old. Andries should try to obtain consensus with other editors before making long-term and known controversial edits. SSS108 talk-email 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I do not care if you agree with my edits. I will request yet another request for comments. Andries 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books References

message: *statement by user:Andries I think that the book by Robert Priddy and two books by Brian Steel (they are now critics of SSB) are fine books written when they were still followers and can be mentioned in the subsection books written by followers, like the other books. I see no valid reason why they cannot be mentioned there  or why they should be treated differently from other books by followers. 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not self-published, but user:SSS108 thinks that they cannot even be mentioned in the further reading/bibliography section which I think is misguided at best. Andries 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why these cannot be mentioned, if the works are published by a reputable publisher. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishers are of comparable reputability as other pro-SSB books. Andries 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, there is no need to separate the books under such headings. If books are useful suggested reading, then these should be all listed under Further reading without making abny distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossie, if a book has a review that was published by reputable media, can we include the link next to the book? SSS108 talk-email 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Highly unusual to do that in a "Further reading" section, as there may be competing/conflicting reviews. If the book is a very notable one, you could create an article about the book and provide links to the different reviews of the book, both positive and negative. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments regarding books by then followers, now ex-followers