This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of the use of the writings of Basava Premanand as a source for Wikipedia articles.
The Wikipedia policy No Original Research states:
The policy provides some tests to determine whether or not a publication should be considered reputable.
It is the mediator's opinion that Indian Skeptic does not qualify as a Reputable Source according to Wikipedia policy. As far as the mediator is aware:
Please express whether you agree or disagree that Indian Skeptic may not be used as a reputable source to satisfy the requirements of the Wikipedia policy No Original Research. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please express your opinion on the following questions. -- BostonMA 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is commonly the case that an author may be published in more than one place. It is the mediator's opinion that when an author is published by more than one source, the reputability or lack or reputability of one source does not bear on the reputability or lack thereof of another source. For example, if an author is published in the New York Times, it does not follow that the author's work appearing in his or her vanity press qualifies as having been published by a reputable source for the purposes of Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Similarly, if an author is published in a journal which has been deemed to not satisfy the reputability requirements of NOR, that does not mean that work by the same author appearing elsewhere cannot be considered as a source (if it meets requirements).
In particular, the mediator believes that any recognition that Premanand may have received from reputable sources does not bear upon the question of whether Indian Skeptic is a reputable source. Nor would a rejection of Indian Skeptic as a reputable source bar use of Premanand's writings that appear elsewhere (provided that source is reputable).
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, employs innuendo to suggest that Sathya Sai Baba may have improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, provides no credible evidence that Sathya Sai Baba improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, an anonymous source cannot reasonably be said to be a reputable source.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please answer the following questions with regard to indian-skeptic.org.
The IndianSkeptic.org website is not run or owned by Basava Premanand. It is owned and operated exclusively by Gerald Huber (a skeptic and friend of Premanand). Huber duplicates material from Premanand's Indian Skeptic magazine onto the IndianSkeptic.org website. Hope that clarifies things. SSS108 talk- email 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Experts in a field may, and often do, cite material which has not yet been published, or which has been published but not by a publisher considered to be reputable according to the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Citation by an expert in the field indicates that the expert has in fact reviewed the material that has been cited, and unless it is clear from the context otherwise, the expert gives credence to the facts cited. If the work in which the citation appears is also published in a peer-reviewed journal, an extra layer of checking may have been performed.
If the purpose of No Original Research is to exclude material that is not recognized as credible by the appropriate community of experts, then the question arises whether work which is cited by experts should be included in Wikipedia, even if such work does not seem to qualify as having been published by reputable sources according to the letter of NOR.
Citation of previous work is often intended to give credit for the specific facts or ideas which may appear in a later article or paper, which are not the original work of the author of that later article or paper. It is the mediator's opinion that citation is not an endorsement of the accuracy of facts or ideas which are not specifically mentioned.
Take as an example the famous mathemetician Srinivasa Ramanujan. This mathemetician had a great instinct for solving problems. Although he discovered many new formulas, he also proposed a significant number of formulas which were shown to be incorrect. If a current day mathemetician uses one of Ramanujan's formula's in a peer-reviewed journal, academic guidelines generally require such work of others to be credited, even if the formula was never published, and was merely found on a scrap of paper among Ramanujan's possessions. The current day mathemetician who uses Ramanujan's formula in his or her own work gives credence and respectability to that particular formula, but is not thereby implying that everything that may appear in one of Ramanujan's notebooks is thereby accurate.
The mediator believes the principle above applies generally. When a fact or idea is cited by an expert, the expert has passed an expert review on that fact or idea. However, this should not be construed to mean that the expert has passed review on the whole work from which that fact or idea was a part, nor does it mean that the expert has deemed the publisher of that original work to be a reputable publisher. The standards for citation outside of Wikipedia are not the same as those within Wikipedia.
The mediator therefore believes that the fact that an article or other work has been cited outside of Wikipedia, even by experts, is not sufficient to show that the article as a whole or other work as a whole has been accepted by the appropriate community of experts.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, you can remove or more this section to any place you choose. Since we are on the topic of Premanand, may we discuss the "Betrayal Letter" as well? Andries insists on linking to this letter, which was originally published and disseminated by Premanand. This letter, in my opinion, is a perfect example of content that grossly violates Wikipedia policies.
Premanand's "Betrayal Letter" is: 1) Anonymous; 2) Has never been cited in reputable media, 3) Its alleged author was arbitrarily changed, by Premanand, after five years. Premanand originally claimed a Sai Student wrote the letter. After I publicly exposed many problems with the letter, Premanand changed the story and claimed, matter-of-factly, that a parent (to a Sai Student) authored the letter. This information was purposely withheld for over five years (even Andries confessed he didn't know that the letter was not authored by a Sai Student: Reference); 4) Despite divulging full names, its contents have never been independently verified by anyone (in any way, shape or form) for over five years; 5) The letter is clearly Anti-Sai propaganda, and 6) Premanand clearly stated, in his correspondence with me, that Nagel got certain facts about the letter completely wrong (she simply parroted what she was told: Reference). Nagel, like Andries, repeated the untruth that the Letter was written by a Sai Student. She never cared to investigate the Letter at all. My research uncovered this startling and withheld information.
It is entirely baffling why Andries feels the "Betrayal Letter" is perfectly suitable to be included in the SSB article, although it is anonymous and has never been published or cited by reputably published sources. Then, Andries vehemently dissents with any citations to Kasturi (in relation to SSB's biography) when Kasturi HAS been cited by reputably published sources. When it comes to Andries Anti-Sai POV, the standard for including information into Wikipedia articles is entirely different than the standard he uses for information that he sees as favoring SSB. SSS108 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Premanand was never called an "expert" or treated as one by the BCC. That is Andries assumption. He cannot substantiate this claim with any factual information. Just because the BBC interviewed Premanand, Andries is claiming Premanand is an "expert". The BBC never referred to Premanand as an "expert". They referred to him as a rationalist and author. Premanand admitted he was a skeptic of SSB since 1968. The Indian Skeptic magazine is not neutral. It is specifically a skeptic magazine that allows for NO peer review. Perhaps Andries can show us the peer reviewed articles? The magazine can only be purchased through India. It does not have it's own distribution. ALL of Premanand's articles (without exception) rely on his personal speculations and assumptions. All of the letters from devotees, that Andries made mention to, were NOT addressed to Premanand or the Indian Skeptic [4] They were used to generate more skeptical questions [5] It is not surprising that Beyerstein's articles were published in a skeptics magazine. Beyerstein is a skeptic. Nagel is also a skeptic. SSS108 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: Nagel is a skeptic of SSB. SSS108 talk- email 19:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, Andries also cited the Gold Control Act, in relation to Premanand. There is wholly inadequate information about this on the Indian Skeptic Site. One must pay to get the details. Full disclosure to this article has never been made public, although it is repeatedly used to critique SSB: Reference It is also referenced on Anti-Sai Sites, who have a promotional offer going on with Premanand [6] SSS108 talk- email 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries also stated (under the "Pending Tasks" on the talk page) that he wants to cite material taken from Premanand's book "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom". I think we also need to discuss the reputability of this book as well. Thanks. SSS108 talk- email 13:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is best we discuss Premanand's book so it will not be an issue in the future. SSS108 talk- email 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If the book is non-notable, how can you cite its materials? SSS108 talk- email 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, I believe the deciding issue is whether the book is published by a reputable source. However, whether the book itself is published by a reputable source, if the book consists of reprints of materials available elsewhere, if the original source is reputable, the material may still be used to support statements in Wikipedia (assuming all other policies are satisfied). -- BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries: do you intend to use the book as a source to back up statements, or do you intend to use exclusively the original material (from which the book is said to derive) to back up statements? -- BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of the use of the writings of Basava Premanand as a source for Wikipedia articles.
The Wikipedia policy No Original Research states:
The policy provides some tests to determine whether or not a publication should be considered reputable.
It is the mediator's opinion that Indian Skeptic does not qualify as a Reputable Source according to Wikipedia policy. As far as the mediator is aware:
Please express whether you agree or disagree that Indian Skeptic may not be used as a reputable source to satisfy the requirements of the Wikipedia policy No Original Research. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Please express your opinion on the following questions. -- BostonMA 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It is commonly the case that an author may be published in more than one place. It is the mediator's opinion that when an author is published by more than one source, the reputability or lack or reputability of one source does not bear on the reputability or lack thereof of another source. For example, if an author is published in the New York Times, it does not follow that the author's work appearing in his or her vanity press qualifies as having been published by a reputable source for the purposes of Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Similarly, if an author is published in a journal which has been deemed to not satisfy the reputability requirements of NOR, that does not mean that work by the same author appearing elsewhere cannot be considered as a source (if it meets requirements).
In particular, the mediator believes that any recognition that Premanand may have received from reputable sources does not bear upon the question of whether Indian Skeptic is a reputable source. Nor would a rejection of Indian Skeptic as a reputable source bar use of Premanand's writings that appear elsewhere (provided that source is reputable).
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, employs innuendo to suggest that Sathya Sai Baba may have improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, provides no credible evidence that Sathya Sai Baba improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the opinion of the mediator, an anonymous source cannot reasonably be said to be a reputable source.
Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please answer the following questions with regard to indian-skeptic.org.
The IndianSkeptic.org website is not run or owned by Basava Premanand. It is owned and operated exclusively by Gerald Huber (a skeptic and friend of Premanand). Huber duplicates material from Premanand's Indian Skeptic magazine onto the IndianSkeptic.org website. Hope that clarifies things. SSS108 talk- email 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Experts in a field may, and often do, cite material which has not yet been published, or which has been published but not by a publisher considered to be reputable according to the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Citation by an expert in the field indicates that the expert has in fact reviewed the material that has been cited, and unless it is clear from the context otherwise, the expert gives credence to the facts cited. If the work in which the citation appears is also published in a peer-reviewed journal, an extra layer of checking may have been performed.
If the purpose of No Original Research is to exclude material that is not recognized as credible by the appropriate community of experts, then the question arises whether work which is cited by experts should be included in Wikipedia, even if such work does not seem to qualify as having been published by reputable sources according to the letter of NOR.
Citation of previous work is often intended to give credit for the specific facts or ideas which may appear in a later article or paper, which are not the original work of the author of that later article or paper. It is the mediator's opinion that citation is not an endorsement of the accuracy of facts or ideas which are not specifically mentioned.
Take as an example the famous mathemetician Srinivasa Ramanujan. This mathemetician had a great instinct for solving problems. Although he discovered many new formulas, he also proposed a significant number of formulas which were shown to be incorrect. If a current day mathemetician uses one of Ramanujan's formula's in a peer-reviewed journal, academic guidelines generally require such work of others to be credited, even if the formula was never published, and was merely found on a scrap of paper among Ramanujan's possessions. The current day mathemetician who uses Ramanujan's formula in his or her own work gives credence and respectability to that particular formula, but is not thereby implying that everything that may appear in one of Ramanujan's notebooks is thereby accurate.
The mediator believes the principle above applies generally. When a fact or idea is cited by an expert, the expert has passed an expert review on that fact or idea. However, this should not be construed to mean that the expert has passed review on the whole work from which that fact or idea was a part, nor does it mean that the expert has deemed the publisher of that original work to be a reputable publisher. The standards for citation outside of Wikipedia are not the same as those within Wikipedia.
The mediator therefore believes that the fact that an article or other work has been cited outside of Wikipedia, even by experts, is not sufficient to show that the article as a whole or other work as a whole has been accepted by the appropriate community of experts.
Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. -- BostonMA 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, you can remove or more this section to any place you choose. Since we are on the topic of Premanand, may we discuss the "Betrayal Letter" as well? Andries insists on linking to this letter, which was originally published and disseminated by Premanand. This letter, in my opinion, is a perfect example of content that grossly violates Wikipedia policies.
Premanand's "Betrayal Letter" is: 1) Anonymous; 2) Has never been cited in reputable media, 3) Its alleged author was arbitrarily changed, by Premanand, after five years. Premanand originally claimed a Sai Student wrote the letter. After I publicly exposed many problems with the letter, Premanand changed the story and claimed, matter-of-factly, that a parent (to a Sai Student) authored the letter. This information was purposely withheld for over five years (even Andries confessed he didn't know that the letter was not authored by a Sai Student: Reference); 4) Despite divulging full names, its contents have never been independently verified by anyone (in any way, shape or form) for over five years; 5) The letter is clearly Anti-Sai propaganda, and 6) Premanand clearly stated, in his correspondence with me, that Nagel got certain facts about the letter completely wrong (she simply parroted what she was told: Reference). Nagel, like Andries, repeated the untruth that the Letter was written by a Sai Student. She never cared to investigate the Letter at all. My research uncovered this startling and withheld information.
It is entirely baffling why Andries feels the "Betrayal Letter" is perfectly suitable to be included in the SSB article, although it is anonymous and has never been published or cited by reputably published sources. Then, Andries vehemently dissents with any citations to Kasturi (in relation to SSB's biography) when Kasturi HAS been cited by reputably published sources. When it comes to Andries Anti-Sai POV, the standard for including information into Wikipedia articles is entirely different than the standard he uses for information that he sees as favoring SSB. SSS108 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Premanand was never called an "expert" or treated as one by the BCC. That is Andries assumption. He cannot substantiate this claim with any factual information. Just because the BBC interviewed Premanand, Andries is claiming Premanand is an "expert". The BBC never referred to Premanand as an "expert". They referred to him as a rationalist and author. Premanand admitted he was a skeptic of SSB since 1968. The Indian Skeptic magazine is not neutral. It is specifically a skeptic magazine that allows for NO peer review. Perhaps Andries can show us the peer reviewed articles? The magazine can only be purchased through India. It does not have it's own distribution. ALL of Premanand's articles (without exception) rely on his personal speculations and assumptions. All of the letters from devotees, that Andries made mention to, were NOT addressed to Premanand or the Indian Skeptic [4] They were used to generate more skeptical questions [5] It is not surprising that Beyerstein's articles were published in a skeptics magazine. Beyerstein is a skeptic. Nagel is also a skeptic. SSS108 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: Nagel is a skeptic of SSB. SSS108 talk- email 19:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
BostonMA, Andries also cited the Gold Control Act, in relation to Premanand. There is wholly inadequate information about this on the Indian Skeptic Site. One must pay to get the details. Full disclosure to this article has never been made public, although it is repeatedly used to critique SSB: Reference It is also referenced on Anti-Sai Sites, who have a promotional offer going on with Premanand [6] SSS108 talk- email 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries also stated (under the "Pending Tasks" on the talk page) that he wants to cite material taken from Premanand's book "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom". I think we also need to discuss the reputability of this book as well. Thanks. SSS108 talk- email 13:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is best we discuss Premanand's book so it will not be an issue in the future. SSS108 talk- email 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If the book is non-notable, how can you cite its materials? SSS108 talk- email 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
SSS108, I believe the deciding issue is whether the book is published by a reputable source. However, whether the book itself is published by a reputable source, if the book consists of reprints of materials available elsewhere, if the original source is reputable, the material may still be used to support statements in Wikipedia (assuming all other policies are satisfied). -- BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Andries: do you intend to use the book as a source to back up statements, or do you intend to use exclusively the original material (from which the book is said to derive) to back up statements? -- BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)