User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source

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 Nagel as a source per Wikipedia policy on Verifiable Sources

Useful Links

* Reminders for Mediator

Factual Account

Alexandra Nagel was the author of an article De Sai Paradox: Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba/The Sai Paradox:contradictions of and surrounding Sathya Sai Baba from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr. 29 Sekten/Cults/Sects, published by the Free University of Amsterdam, 1994, ISBN 9053833412. The article was published in the Dutch only.

The Free University of Amsterdam advertises that its "origins are rooted in the Christian faith" and that "it still retains its tradition of Christian standards and values."

Since 1994 Nagel has written several other articles, A guru accused and Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?, in English which have not been published in reputable journals, but which are available on the internet. Andries reports that the articles A guru accused and Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or? shares both similarities with and differences from her 1994 article. Among the differences, the 1994 article contains information specific to the Netherlands, not mentioned in the other articles, and 1994 article treated only allegations of inappropriate sexual approaches to Tal Brooke and Keith Ord while here later articles also report upon other allegations of sexual misconduct.

I have rewritten the factual account again. The account in this section is intended as a reference point for discussions. It does not address policy (or guideline) issues. Please indicate whether you think this account is fair and factual below. Agreement with this account does not imply agreement on any policy issues, nor does it imply consent to any content within any Wikipedia article. Please discuss policy questions and non-factual issues elsewhere.

Andries: The above is to a greatl extent factual, ~~however the above mentioned differences were the only major differences.~~ She wrote three major English language articles, one of which contains completely new information, i.e. "For and against SSB on the internet". English Dutch She also wrote one article in Dutch as part of her curriculum that has served as the basis for the three English language articles. Andries 17:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. You state that the account is to a great extent factual. Is there any thing stated which is not factual? Also, you mention other facts which are not mentioned in the account. If these facts are omitted, would that affect the fairness of the presentation? --BostonMA 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the article I noticed that she mentioned more and other accusations in her article A Guru Accused that she did not mention in her 1994 article the Sai Paradox published by the Free University of Amsterdam press. Andries 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether your comment was intended to answer the question which precedes it. If it was intended as an answer, I am unable to determine what the answer is. Please respond in the form "No, there is nothing that is not factual and there is nothing omitted which affects the fairness of the presentation", or "Yes, there are important facts which if omitted affect the fairness of the presentation. These facts are ... If you omit these facts a reader might get the misimpression that ...". --BostonMA 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There are important facts not mentioned in you summary (that contains no errors) that affects the fairness of your summary. The facts not mentioned in your summary is that apart from the allegations of sexual abuse Nagel mentions in her English lanuage article A Guru Accused when compared to her Dutch 1994 university article De Sai Paradox many more accusations of a different type, like broken promises, unproven paranormal claims. Andries 10:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SSS108: No I do not believe the account is fair and factual. The two articles were not published in any reputable references. If the alleged updated versions (both written in 2001) were so notable and reputable, why have they not been published since? If non-notable articles can be cited, and we begin to allow this with Nagel, this will set a precedent that most certainly will be abused. Therefore, I do not accept any reference to Nagel's non-notable articles. If Nagel's non-notable articles are to be cited, then we must also make mention to Nagel's embarrassing diary notes that she publisehed on the internet and her email correspondence with me. Does Andries agree to this too? As stated on our earlier discussion, any editor can remove any information that is not reliable cited. You include it, I can rightfully remove it [1] SSS108 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, the account above states that the two articles were not published in reputable journals. Perhaps you misread. Also, I would like this section to deal exclusively with facts. If you do not mind, I would like to move your comment regarding non-notability, etc. to another section. Please let me know if you believe the factual account contains inaccuracies and or important factual omissions. Please also let me know if you have any objections to my moving your comments (and my own). Finally, if you do not believe that there are factual inaccuracies or important factual omissions, could you change your statement of agreement / disagreement. Thanks --BostonMA 17:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA. I understand that. Nevertheless, since when do we start making references to non-notable articles? As I already stated, if we make reference to Nagel's 2 non-notable articles, then we should also make mention to her non-notable diary notes (in which she uses expletives to describe SSB, divulges her emotional problems and contradicts the 2 articles in question) and her email correspondence with me. Therefore, what standard should we follow? If Nagel's non-notable works are to be cited, then we should cite all of them. I would like my original comment left in this section. If you want to start another section about non-notability, that's fine with me. And if you want to move these 2 posts, that is also fine with me. SSS108 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I would like this section to represent a factual account. I would also like it to represent a factual account to which everyone agrees without any caveats or reservations. I have pointed out that some of your original comment is related to policy issues, and not to facts. May I remove them? Second, you made a statement that might be interpretted as you believing that the factual account is inaccurate. You state "The two articles were not published in any reputable references." I have pointed out that the account given above also states that the two articles were not published in any reputable journal. Thus I have difficulty understanding whether or not there are any alleged facts in the account that you believe are not facts, or whether there are any facts that you believe need to be present in order to avoid deception by selective presentation of the facts. Please address these two issues. --BostonMA 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I guess you can remove/move whatever you see as irrelevant. Those two articles are specifically against SSB. Therefore, Nagel needs to called a Critic of SSB. Furthermore, on the "Shiva Shakti" article, there is only mention to one other alleged sexual abuse victim, "Sam Young" (which is a pseudonym). It is also my contention that "A Guru Accused" is NOT related to Nagels "De Sai Paradox". That is separate article altogether. Nagel emailed me and ONLY said that the "Shiva Shakti" article encapsulated the contents in "De Sai Paradox" Reference I don't feel that referencing Nagel's Anti-Sai Articles, when they have not been notably referenced, is appropriate. The paragraph you wrote would be advocating for non-notable Anti-Sai Material (which Andries himself is dead against). Although the words are factual, it is not fair. SSS108 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the paragraph(s) at the beginning of this section do not advocate for non-notable Anti-Sai Material. They were intended to be merely a statement of some pertinent facts, and that is how they appear to me. Could you explain a bit why you believe that they advocate something and are unfair? It would help if you gave pick out one or two sentences which you feel are advocacy. Thanks --BostonMA 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to much this much clearer to you, BostonMA. First of all, it is not like Nagel is some sort of reputed person who is well known for publishing material on SSB. She managed to get one paper published in 1994 in an Anti-Sect Journal published by a Protestant University. That's it! Andries vociferously demands that any people and references mentioned in the SSB articles be mentioned in "reputable media or sources". Andries seeks the exclusion of my name from the SSB articles, yet the paragraph cites Andries name (when he is as "non-notable" as he claims I am). If Andries name it cited, he should also be referenced as a critic of SSB. Nowhere does the paragraph state Nagel is a self-professed critic of SSB since 1990. The Shiva Shakti and Guru Accused articles have not been published anywhere else except on Anti-Sai Sites, yet these articles are being referenced based on what? A 1994 article that Andries claims was updated? These are Anti-Sai Articles specific to Anti-Sai Sites. Let you or Andries show me otherwise. Specifically, I take issue with the mentioning of the names to the two articles and the absence of the fact that Nagel is a self-professed critic of SSB since 1990. SSS108 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your resonse. I'm now suspecting that there is confusion regarding the purpose of the paragraphs that I wrote. I wrote these paragraphs (and others) because I hope that by organizing the discussion, we might be able to reduce some of the repetitiveness in the discussion. From your comments, I am suspecting you might believe that I would like the paragraphs above to become part of the SSB articles or you might believe that agreeing to the paragraphs above somehow prevents you from raising concerns and objections that you believe to be valid. Please let me know if I am getting close to understanding your point of view. --BostonMA 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what it appeared we were doing, i.e., trying to write a paragraph that everyone could mutually agree on, to be included into the SSB article about Nagel. I just noticed that Andries wrote, on his first response, "She also wrote one article in Dutch as part of her curriculum that has served as the basis for the three English language articles." Here, Andries is flip-flopping about the origins to this article. Andries stated, several times, that the article was not written as a college assignment Scroll To Bottom Of Section, and now he just said the article was written as part of Nagel's curriculum (meaning it was a college assignment). The "truth" changes every other week. That is why I cannot accept his claims or words at face value. SSS108 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As usual you see deception where there is only a somewhat complicated situation and misunderstanding. (I do not understand why you do not show even a fraction of your skepticism for SSB's words too.) She wrote two Dutch articles for two universities, one was an official publication called De Sai Paradox for the Free University of Amsterdam in 1994 and one was written 2001 as as part of her curriculum and called De Neergang van een Goeroe door het Internet - Sai Baba: van avatar naar homo-pedofiel/The Downfall of a guru through the Internet -Sai Baba: from avatar to homo-pedophile for the University of Amsterdam. That article served as the basis for three English language articles. Andries

Andries, where was the 2001 article published? You are changing tactics again. First you argued that "De Sai Paradox" is the original source for the other two articles: "A guru accused" and "Sai baba as Shiva-Shakti: a created myth? Or?" Now, you are saying that there are three English articles instead of two (which you originally claimed). It appears you are now saying that Alexandra Nagel's article "Sai Baba: from avatar to homo-pedophile" is the original source for the other 2/3 English articles. This contradicts your original claim that "De Sai Paradox" is the original source for the other 2/3 English articles. So which is the original source: "De Sai Paradox" or "Sai Baba: from avatar to homo-pedophile"? Thaumaturgic 06:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, now you can see the problem here. The truth has finally come out. I will refer to the following articles as:

"De Sai Paradox" = Ref1

"Sai Baba - from avatar to homo-pedophile" = Ref2

"A Guru Accused" = A

"Shiva Shakti: A Created Myth? Or?" = B

"For And Against Sathya Sai Baba On The Internet" = C

First, Andries insisted that Ref1, the Dutch article published in 1994, was the original source for the updated versions of articles A and B → Because of these claims BostonMA attempted to write a factual account using this information → Andries then mentioned article C and said it contained "completely new information" (meaning it is not dependent on Ref1 or articles A or B) → Andries then made reference to Ref2, a Dutch article published in 2001, and claimed that articles A, B and C originated from it (meaning they did not originate from Ref1 as Andries originally claimed) → After researching Ref2, it was written on January 29th 2001 → Articles A and C were written in August 2001 and article B was written in September 2001 [2] → After reading Ref2, it is obvious that it is the original source for articles A, B and C (they contain essentially the same information) → So it can only be concluded that articles A and B were NOT the updated versions to Ref1 as Andries originally contended. Ref2 is the source. I assume Andries next tactic is to say that Ref2 came from Ref1. However, it is clear that Ref2 is a completely different article. For starters, Ref2 makes no mention to Swallow (which comprised a huge chunk of Ref1) and relies heavily on internet sources (as can be seen in the references). Also, out of 85 references listed on Ref1, only 4 (Eijk, Djik, Brooke and Vroon) were cited on Ref2 (yes, I checked all of them). Clearly, they are not the same article, nor was one taken from the other. So the "notably" published Ref1 does NOT lend its "notability" to the Anti-Sai Articles A, B or C or Ref2. The story keeps changing. SSS108 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic: The summary sounds factual to me, but it is not fair. I agree with SSS108. Citing non-notable references is setting a precedent that will be abused. Thaumaturgic 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic, the account above does not make any mention of whether non-notable references ought to be, or ought not to be cited. It makes no references to Wikipedia at all. When I asked whether the parties agreed that it presented the facts fairly, what I was asking is whether the parties agree that the presentation has not omitted facts which would cast a different light on the subject. Please reread the section, as well as my comments, and reconsider your comment. I would like to move your comment about citing non-notable references to another section, as this deals with Wikipedia policy and not with facts. Thanks --BostonMA 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the other's comments, I guess I am tempted to give my own views as well. Yes, please move my comments as you see fit. I believe the above account is not factual for two reasons: 1) As SSS108 pointed out, Alexandra Nagel's status as a Sai Antagonist is not mentioned; 2) Andries never argued, until recently, that "A guru accused" and "Sai baba as Shiva-Shakti: a created myth? Or?" were updated versions of "De Sai Paradox". I have noticed, over the past months, that Andries has changed his opinions and tactics repeatedly to suit his point of view. I consider Andries recent claims about "A guru accused" and "Sai baba as Shiva-Shakti: a created myth? Or?" to be more of the same. For these two reasons, I do not consider the account factual. I hope this answered your question. Thaumaturgic 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we must rely on Andries assessment of the situation, which I cannot accept. The published article "De Sai Paradox" is only written in Dutch and I don't read Dutch. How this one published article became two separate articles equal in length, if not more, is beyond me. The references for "De Sai Paradox" are hardly comparable, with the references used on "Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?" and "A Guru Accused". Also, one does not notice any references to Sam Young, Helena Klitsie and other names. It seems the main part that is copied is about Deborah Swallow. However, Swallow does not talk about the allegations. Since these two articles have not been published in any reputable sources, they would constitute original research. SSS108 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, SSS108, of course her old article does have references to Helena Klitsie and Sam Young. The article was updated Andries 11:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated and re-published by the Free University? If that is the case, I see no problems. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, her updated articles were never re-published by the VU. Andries 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, the mediator question is pertinent.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One can also make the case that since Nagel's two articles were not published by the VU in the last 5 years, the 2 articles do not meet the VU's criteria for scholarly writing. SSS108 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy Issues (Verifiability)

The question has arisen whether or not the articles A guru accused and Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or? may be considered reliable sources. The Wikipedia policy Verifiability contains text which I believe bears upon the question:

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

In the current situation, it may be a fact that Nagel's English articles report many of the same facts as her published article. However, it seems to the mediator that statements by Nagel are analogous to the famous physicists statements about his/her current (dis)belief in Theory X. --BostonMA 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree that the above two articles do not satisfy the requirement of verifiable sources according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not discuss other issues in this section.

Andries: I believe that using the two updated English language articles by Nagel (There were three articles, but one contained completely new information) folllows the spirit of the Wikipedia policies of using the best sources available. Nevertheless, I admit that using these articles do not follow the letter of the policy. Andries 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108: I Agree the 2 articles do not satisfy the requirement of verifiable sources according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SSS108 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: I agree. Thaumaturgic 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Best Sources Available Not Necessarily Most Accurate or Up-to-date

An argument has been raised that articles which do not satisfy the requirements for verifiable sources according to the letter of the Wikipedia Verifiability policy, might nevertheless be a better source than an older article which does meet those requirements (according to the letter). A relevent passage from Verifiability Policy is again:

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

The two newer articles differ from the older published article in that they contain more recent material. However, this seems to be analogous to the situation of the physicist with an updated theory. The physicist's new theory may in fact be an improvement from a scientific viewpoint. Nevertheless, from Wikipedia's perspective, the "better" source is the one that has been published. In the case of the Nagel articles, the differences that distinguish the two newer articles from the older published article might be seen as improvements because they are more up to date. However, I think Wikipedia's policy is to not necessarily use the most up-to-date information, but to use the most up-to-date information that has been deemed credible by an appropriate community of experts.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with the opinion of the mediator expressed in this section. Please do not discuss unrelated issues here. --BostonMA 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108: I agree. SSS108 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: Agreed Thaumaturgic 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Andries: I do not like to say that I agree in this case, but I have to agree based on the formulation of Wikipedia policies. Andries 14:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Do Sources Need to be Notable?

The question has been raised as to whether Wikipedia policy or guidelines require sources to be notable. The text of Notability begins with the statement:

A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.

It is the mediator's interpretation of the notability guideline, that it applies only to the question of which topics ought to be included in Wikipedia. The mediator does not read the notability requirement as saying that verifiable sources used to suppport various statements in a Wikipedia article need to be notable. Notable sources may be preferable when available, but non-notable sources may satisfy the verifiable sources requirement.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the above opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.

SSS108: Agree SSS108 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: Depending on the neutrality of the non-notable sources, I would agree. Thaumaturgic 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Andries: No, notability and reputable, verifiable sources are two different concepts. Andries 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement above begins with "No". I am not convinced I know whether you are exressing agreement or disagreement. Please clarify by including "agree" or "disagree". Thank-you. --BostonMA 04:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that sources do not have to be notable for inclusion. Andries 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy Issue (Verifiability of Non-English Language Source)

The Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources in languages other than English states:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources. For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper.

The article De Sai Paradox: Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba is written in Dutch. This makes it difficult for many users of Wikipedia who do not read or understand Dutch to verify the content of the source. However, that does not make the source un-verifiable. Encyclopedias have always relied upon multi-lingual authors and editors to honestly report upon materials written in languages other than the language of the encyclopedia. I don't believe Wikipedia is any different in this respect, nor do I believe it should be. --BostonMA 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the above opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.

SSS108: I Agree SSS108 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: Agreed. Thaumaturgic 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Andries: agree, though I admit that Dutch is a minor language. Andries 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can translate some, but this is a lot of effort and I do not want to hear after translation. Thanks, but we won't use the source anyway because of reason x. Please think in advance before you request a translation. Andries 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable that you do not want to waste your time. I am guessing, but perhaps incorrectly, that you are a native speaker of Dutch. If so, that is, if you are able to read the article and fully and accurately comprehend it, then I don't see why edits you make in Wikipedia could not be backed by a Dutch language source. Of course I have avoided answering some other questions, such as whether the edits you may make would be considered appropriate for the article, and whether the journal(?) in which the article was published is reliable. So my suggestion is that you not do any translation, if this is at all difficult for you. --BostonMA 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands that non-English sources have to be translated. I do understand this for a minor language like Dutch, though I personally have a bit of a problem with demands of translating major European languages like French and German. Inclusion of those languages is fully accepted in the Dutch scholarly tradition. Yes, I am a native speaker of Dutch, but translating is tedious. Andries 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen a requirement that non-English sources must be translated. It is quite possible that I was mistaken. Could you point me to the relevant policy/guideline? Thanks. --BostonMA 15:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline, not a policyWikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English It was made somewhat stricter a few months ago. Andries 15:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read this section of the guideline. It does not appear to me to require that sources be in English. Do you still maintain that English sources are required? --BostonMA 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the guidelines state that non-English sources are okay if they are translated, but also cited in the original language by the editors of Wikipedia. Very well possible, but a lot of work. Andries 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The guideline does not appear to me to say that non-English sources are okay only if translated. The section on translation appears to me to be related to quotations. --BostonMA 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, agreed only quotations. Andries 14:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that the guideline states that quotations must be translated, but that it does not state that to use a source as a Verifiable Source, the source must be translated? --BostonMA 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not an issue IMO. We will have a mention of this article's content and pertinent sections from the article offered in both original Dutch and translate to English as a reference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Academic Credentials Not Relevant to Status as Reputable Source

Alexandra Nagel's 1994 published article was based upon writings she had authored in partial fulfillment of her academic requirements. The question is raised whether such works may be considered reputable sources. Specifically, concern has been raised that the author did not have academic credentials at the time the article was written. In the mediator's opinion, it is the responsibility of a reputable publication to screen articles for their quality. If a reputable publication deems an article worthy of publication, even though the author lacks academic credentials, then it is this mediator's opinion, that Wikipedia editors ought to accept the article as one coming from a reputable source.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the above opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.

SSS108: I agree. This one article can be cited as coming from a "reputable" source. SSS108 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: Agreed Thaumaturgic 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Andries: Agreed Andries 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper Attribution of Nagel

Nagel's 1994 article was published by an institution which advertises that it adheres to a "tradition of Christian standards and values." It is not an unreasonable supposition that a certain rivalry exists between the Free University of Amsterdam and Sathya Sai Baba's movement. It is this mediator's opinion, that when relying upon publications of such an institution as the source of information in a Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to properly attribute this information. In my opinion, this requires a statement in the text of the article that the information is sourced by an institution that professes adherence to Christian values, or something similar.

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the above opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.

SSS108: I agree. SSS108 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thaumaturgic: Agreed Thaumaturgic 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Andries: No, this is exaggerated. It would have been different if Nagel worked as a professor for the VU on the dept. of theology, like Kranenborg, because, I guess, if you want to work there on that dept. one is probably selected on Christian background and one probably has the obligation not to write anti-Christian, but this is an article by a person who was never an employee of the VU. There is nothing that indicates that the selection of authors for indivual movements for this magazine is influenced by a requirement for a Christian background or pro Christian writings, or anti-non Christian writings. I cannot see anything anti-Hindu in Kranenborg's later writings, with the exception of one book by him that is published by a protestant Christian publishing house. Andries 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (amemded for content)

Again, I suggest that this question is asked at Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_topics_related_to_the_Netherlands because I feel that I am the only one here who is able to have an informed opinion about this subject. Andries 18:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are the only one with "an informed opinion", then think of the reader. Unless we properly disclose what this University state mission is (as per its own mission statement), we risk misleading the readers. To include such disclosure is within NPOV policy as it pertains to attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As you say "There is nothing that indicates that the selection of authors for indivual movements for this magazine is influenced by a requirement for a Christian background or pro Christian writings". And I agree with that. But we can say with the same level of certainty that "There is nothing that indicates that the selection of authors for indivual movements for this magazine is 'not influenced by a requirement for a Christian background or pro Christian writings". For this very reason, we need to disclose their affiliation. Leave it to the reader to make ther assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, without wanting to sound arrogant, I think that in this case, I am the only one who is able to have an informed opinion. How is it possible that people who do not speak Dutch, who most likely know little about Dutch universities can come to an informed opinion? Andries 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem in quoting non-English sources. My view, is that the cite is needed as it was published in a publication that meets the threshold for reputable source, but I also strongly believe that attribution alone is not sufficient in this case, being a single article published by an Ortodox Protestan University. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

First you more or less admit that you cannot have an informed opinion and then you state that you "have a strong belief". This strong belief is based on what? Andries 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that 1994 Nagel's article was one of the few articles/publications about the sexual abuse by SSB before the year 2000 and the only scholarly, but time has unfortunately clearly vindicated her article. This should be taken into consideration too. Andries 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to give proper attribution then I think it is more relevant to give some background information about Nagel than about the VU, for example the following verifiable information is available and could be stated 1. that she told a journalist that she personally met Ord in the ashram 2. that she wrote several articles about paranormally related subjects and 3. that she wrote several articles about New Age related subjects. Andries 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so. Her notability is questionable. The only reason for inclusion is the fact that her article was chosen by the magazine to be published. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But Jossi, I always try to give the reader some background information about who (Nagel, writer about paranormal and new age) wrote what (Sai Paradox) where (VU magazine) and when (1994). This is what I think is proper attribution. Andries 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

An analogy, in the article guru, I included a reference to a 1997 article by a university professor (Albertina Nugteren) of the University of Tilburg that was then still officially (until 2002) a catholic university, but to state that she worked for a then Catholic university is possible, but I still think somewhat exaggerated. (I just became of aware of this fact by the way) And to state the very diluted religious background of the university in a publication of the university when treating an article by an author who never worked for the university is clearly exaggerated. Andries 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not about Nagel. It is about Nagel's article that was published in "Sekten", an Anti-Sect journal published by a Protestant University. Therefore, articles appearing in this journal need to be cited as coming from a religious University whose staff happens to be Protestant and whose publications happen to be Anti-Sects. SSS108 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The book in which Nagel's article was published contained two other articles. One was an article by a follower of Andrew Cohen written by Andre van der Braak as a guest contributor and then still a follower. If the journal was an anti-cult or Christian counter cult movement article then this would never have been allowed. Ergo this journal was not an anti-cult or Christian countercult journal. Andries 19:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sekten was not a book. It was a Journal/Magazine. What was the context of Cohen's article in the magazine? Besides this one article, by Cohen, where are the other articles that are not Anti-Sects? Is there any volume (published by Sekten) that was not Anti-Sect? Letters from devotees are published on skeptic's sites. This does not make a skeptic's site "non-skeptic". It is a fact that Christian Organizations (i.e., the Lutheran World Federation and the World Council of Churches) sponsered articles, with Anti-Sect tones, through the Free University Amsterdam [3] Couple this with the Free University's policy of having the staff be orthodox Protestant and this becomes very relevant information. SSS108 04:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The magazine was published in book form and the book has an ISBN nr. The article about Andrew Cohen was labelled as a guest article and was written by Cohen's then follower, Andre van der Braak. Van der Braak's article was published without any comments. The article by Nagel was not anti-Sect, nor was any other article in that magazine, as far as I am aware (I have read many articles from that magazine). Andries 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Journal in Which Nagel's Article Published

The information is correct, though I do no know whether it is a Journal. The tone and the contents of the various articles in that magazine is not anti-cult. Yes, sometimes it is critical, and sometimes very critical, but in almost all cases the criticism is justified. (The series also got better over the years.) Andries 11:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The editors select suitable authors and if there are no suitable authors are available then they publish nothing. I read that Kranenborg could not find suitable authors for Opus Dei or the catholic church (I do not remember which one) and no article was published. The reason for this selection procedure is obvious: these professors, like Kranenborg, have no time to take years to study a single movement from nearby and using participant observation. Apart from that, Nagel wrote in her 1994 article that it was written in close collaboration with Richard Singelenberg and Dutch psychology professor Piet Vroon. The first wrote quite a lot of articles about cults (too lenient and too sympathetically for my taste) and the latter a lot about SSB in Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant. Vroon was first neutral and interested in SSB but later became completely anti after a visit to the ashram and he became sometimes unreasonably and excessively critical. Andries 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A student's article in a magazine from an Ortodox Protestant University is citable as a student's article from an Ortodox Protestan University. Mo more and no less. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A peer reviewed article is citable as a peer reviewed article, no more no less. Wikipedia editors were and should not be on the editorial board of scholarly and scientific magazines. Andries 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we should try to give the reader some some background information about her and about the VU, but the fact remains that she managed to get her article (with very good reasons, I believe) published in a peer reviewed official publication of the Free Univiversity of Amsterdam. And the article should be cited and treated as such. Andries 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Here is what the official policy says Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F "What counts as a reputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." We have to edit Wikipedia and apply policy with common sense, but if my common sense contradicts your common sense then I think it is very appropriate to refer to the text of the policy. Andries 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One must keep in mind that the Journal in question is an Anti-Sect journal. The fact that the University upholds and openly professes Christian values is entirely relevant to their publication of an Anti-Sect Journal that happens to target non-Christian movements. This is more than just coincidence. SSS108 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no objection to citing this source, as it meets the reputability threshold, with the caveat that we ought to disclose the obvious allegiance to Christian values of the publisher. Provide the cite, provide information about the source, and let the reader be the judge. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Prominence of Nagel's 1994 Article in main SSB article

Andries: I find it basically okay to use her 1994 article and I will give it the prominence that it deserves, that is a big promincence because it is the only peer reviewed article available world wide that does not only treat the belief and practices, based on hagiographical literature, but also the person of SSB. If other editors object to giving a big prominence to Nagel's article then I would like to hear new arguments for this, and I expect them to refer to policy and guidelines to back up their arguments. I have until now not seen one convincing argument supported by policy and guidelines for not giving a big prominence to Nagel's 1994 article. Andries 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thaumaturgic: In line with Andries comments, other references that cite Kasturi, Sandweiss and Murphet should also be given the same prominence they deserve. Thaumaturgic 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Statements by Parties to Mediation

I have given my opinions, on the some of the issues related to the usability of Alexandra Nagel's work. Please express you own opinions here. --BostonMA 03:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One major difference that she explicitly states is that she was shocked to learn that SSB not only molested young men, but also boys and also the amount of money involved. Another major difference, but not essential and understandable, is that in her updated articles, she does not treat the controversy about SSB in the Netherlands extensively. The fourth major difference is of course, that in the 1994 article she only treated the inappropriate sexual approaches to Tal Brooke and Keith Ord and now the list is longer. I cannot think of any other major difference of her updated articles. She now uses two articles for what she wrote in 1994 in one article. Andries 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would argue for caution in accepting the inclusion of this magazine as being de facto reputable. On a previous dispute with Andries, he included an article published in the same magazine written also by a student. This magazine publishes many types of articles, and is not a publication that publishes peer reviewed articles. One thing would be of interest: has Nagel been published at all in any peer reviewed publication?. Googling her name seeems only brings back sites related to critics, or ahem the articles in Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Having said that, her article should be cited in the article but within proportion to her reputation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer Jossi's question whether Nagel has been published in a peer reviewed Journal, Nagel published an article about Wolf Messing in relation to SSB in Tijdschrift voor Parapsychologie/Journal for parapsychology 368, vol. 72 nr 4, Dec. 2005, pp. 14-17. It's in Dutch. She also thanked Robert Prddy and Brian Steel in that article for the information they provided in the after word. An unpublished older English language version of that article is linked to in that Wikipedia article. A google test is fine to assess whether somebody is notable enough to have an article about, but it is not a good way to assess the reputability of sources. Also, it is my opinion that the quality of Nagel's article is better than the article by Haan that Jossi is referring to and that I have used a source in another article. It is my opinion that if you want to cite Nagel's article in proportion to the reputability of that article, relative to the reputability of other articles used as a source in the SSB article then Nagel's article deserves a prominent citation. Only the Daily Telegraph and India Today articles are as detailed and have equal or near-equal reputability, I think. Andries 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

It is true that the magazine sometimes accepts articles by guest contributors, but the status of the article is explicitly stated by the editor. Everything indicates that the article by Nagel was a peer reviewed official publication by the Free University of Amsterdam, like the majority of the articles in that magazine. Andries 12:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple comparison of the three articles: "De Sai Paradox", "Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?" and "A Guru Accused" shows that they are not one and the same. The only part that seems to be duplicated is the article about Deborah Swallow. Since "Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?" and "A Guru Accused" were not published in any notable references, they constitute original research. Also, to date, Andries has never claimed that the other 2 articles were taken from "De Sai Paradox". This is a recent, newfound, revelation.

Also, it is important to point out that Alexandra Nagel is a self-professed Anti-Sai Activist since 1990. All of her writings are written from a critics POV. Her articles are not neutral and I have pointed out numerous errors in her writings. These writings were college assignments and Nagel rehashed the same information over and over. SSS108 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles need not to be neutral to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia cares about verifiable sources, not neutral sources. NPOV means describing conflicting POVs in a without giving undue weight to any of them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, I understand what you said. I am simply pointing out that Nagel is a critic. The way she is described by Andries, gives the impression that she is neutral. I just want to make it clear she isn't. SSS108 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Andries is arguing for her status as a reputable source. My take is that she is a source and should be cited, but not put her on a pedestal of reputability that may not be warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Her article, "De Sai Paradox" is published in a University Journal. Therefore, I have no problems if Andries cites that particular paper. I have problems when Andries tries to cite Nagel's other papers that were never published in any notable references. It appears that since Nagel had one article published in a notable reference, Andries is wrongfully elevating all of Nagel's papers to the same level. SSS108 06:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a practical matter of course. Do we want Wikipedia to use an outdated Dutch language article or do we want Wikipedia to use a reasonable up to date English article? I chose the latter for practical reasons. Andries 11:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, my site contains voluminous amounts of information updating the controversy. Should we cite my non-notable website as well? If you want cite "updated" information that has not been cited in reputable publications, then I see no reason why we can't cite my site as well. My site contains the "updated" versions to many of the allegations. Judge carefully what standard you are seeking to implement. As I have stated before, you argue heavily for the inclusion of the Anti-Sai POV, but when the same standards are demanded for the Pro-Sai POV, you argue against it! SSS108 18:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

About the Free University of Amsterdam

Some background about the VU. Cite from: http://www.geocities.com/fedor_steeman/nederland.html ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Free University of Amsterdam. Despite the formal separation between Church and State (and thus education), one University, the Free University of Amsterdam (VU) has an interesting history in relation to creationism. The university has always traditionally been a 'Christian' university. Abraham Kuyper, a cleric and politician founded it in 1880. His intention with the University was to give the religious youth the possibility to profess science on biblical principles. Being an Orthodox Protestant, Kuyper was also strongly opposed to Darwinism. Nowadays the University still requires employees to be (Orthodox) Protestant.

This might explain why the University puts out an Anti-Sect Journal. SSS108 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From the VU's website:

Vrije Universiteit's origins are rooted in the Christian faith. This is why we attach such great importance to our social role. We take the view that academic work cannot be divorced from the concerns of society, in terms of standards, values, philosophy and religion.

Abraham Kuyper, Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905, founded Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 1880. At first the university was only open to Reformed Christians and was entirely financed by their fund-raising efforts and donations. Since the 1960s, however, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has been open to everyone and funded in the same way as the other Dutch universities, although it still retains its tradition of Christian standards and values. This finds expression in the emphasis placed upon social involvement in the university’s teaching and research programmes.

When citing material published from this University, we need to provide to readers the very relevant information that that this University represents a Christian POV. I intent to add this statement to the many references added by Andries to many articles in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Protestant University. Refs: 01 - 02 - 03 SSS108 06:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the VU originally came from a Dutch reformed background is stated in the article VU and should be there and is unrelated to Nagel's article and should not be in the article SSB. Andries 11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to state that Kranenborg comes from a Christian background when his writings are used as a source, because the Christian influences in his writings, especially in his earlier writings, can be discerned, but to mention this for every author that was published in the magazine that he edited, is, I think, incorrect and highly exaggerated. Andries 13:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg comes not olnly from a Christian background, he is a pastor using the title "Reverend". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A university that requires all his employees to be Ortodox Protestant, and that has in its stated mission wording related to the "uphlolding of Christian values", is important information that needs to be conveyed for NPOV. Imagine a magazine from IUM, in which an article is published about the evil of Western societies. Whould it not be necessary to disclose that this is the Islamic University of Medina? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern based on outdated formal statements by the VU and I suggest that you ask this question on the Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_topics_related_to_the_Netherlands. Now it seems to hinge all around my opinion and assessment, which I feel you have difficulty to trust. I would be very surprized if contributors there agreed with you. I find it difficult to explain the somewhat complicated situation. Andries 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not outdated. It is straight from VU's website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you are right that this formal statement is not outdatedAndries 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Space Reserved for Conversational items to be deleted

She has not written me about this. It is my assessment of her two articles, but I think that she did write to Moreno that the contents of her 1994 article is encapsulated by her two new articles. (this is somewhat in accurate, because her 1994 article contains information specific for the Netherlands, not mentioned in her new articles) Andries 04:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have change the paragraph above. Would you say that it is accurate now? Thanks --BostonMA 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is fair and accurate if you insert the word "also" in "while here later articles report ALSO upon other allegations of sexual misconduct." Of course nitpicking on the wording is possible and will likely occur, but it is basically fair and accurate. Andries 13:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

off topic Joe,/SSS108, And how dare you to complain about original research? If there is somebody who is guilty of publishing original research in Wikipedia then it is you. I find it difficult to accept such hypocritical remarks from you. If we only applied a fraction of the critical attitude that you reserve for Nagel to your homepage then information sourced to your homepage would have been gone long ago. Andries 13:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (amended for grammar)

What is the actual name of the article, and what number or issue of the journal was the article published?

The name of the article is De Sai Paradox: Tegenstrijdigheden van en rondom Sathya Sai Baba/The Sai Paradox:contradictions of and surrounding Sathya Sai Baba from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr. 29 Sekten/Cults/Sects, published by the Free University Amsterdam press, edited among others by Reender Kranenborg (1994) ISBN 9053833412 Andries 13:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(A request for SS108: please sign at the end of your last paragraph and not on a separate line, and pleae do not add horizontal rules between postings. Thanks) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay Jossie. But if I forget, please remind me. It's become a habit. SSS108 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexandra Nagel's article (name) was published in (name). What is reliability of this publication? --BostonMA 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The magazine series is called religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands edited among others by Reender Kranenborg, published by the Free University of Amsterdam press. It is the best source published in the Netherlands and sometimes (and in this case) the best in the world. Andries 04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Nagel's article was published by the Free University of Amsterdam is a mystery. In 1994, Nagel had no credentials and no college accreditations. Even Andries cannot say how she got her paper published in this University Journal. No one knows what criteria were used to accept her paper. It is my opinion that the paper in question was a college assignment (just as Nagel stated her other papers were).

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the article was published, in 1994, in a University Journal specific to sects. The Journal is called "Sekten". Nagel's article was called "De Sai Paradox". It is published on Anti-Sai Sites only in Dutch. It has not been translated into English. I believe the relevant information is as follows: Free University Amsterdam; 'Sekten', 1994, nr. 29; ISBN 9053833412 SSS108 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, can you repost the correct link on my discussion tab. The link does not work and SSS108 had to send me the link. Even then, I had problems. Thanks Thaumaturgic 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)