Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

I have re-pasted an edited version -- I deleted the original file because there were some sections I felt uncomfortable leaving in the edit history. I'm still not exactly persuaded this article sits comfortably in SourceWatch esp given the more extensive profile in Wikipedia. Anyway, others might have some thoughts on that -- bob

I have removed some information from the Sathya Sai Baba in accordance with a Wikipedia ArbCom Ruling regarding negative information against him that is potentially libelous. To view the most recent discussion, please see the Talk:Sathya Sai Baba. I would suggest updating this entire article with the most recent version on Wikipedia to maintain fairness. Thanks. SSS108 19:37, 11 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Hi SSS108, welcome to SourceWatch. A couple of points a) while the article in question has numerous links to Wikipedia, any deletions need to be explained to SourceWatch contributors. Providing a link to consideration of an article by Wikipedia contributors, while potentially relevant, is not sufficient. SourceWatch is different from Wikipedia, operates to different editorial polices and comprises a different set of contributors. As such, there is no compelling reason that articles on the same topic should be standardised between the two. Otherwise, why both create a separate entry? b)I agree that the SourceWatch article could be improved with some of the puff taken out, I would ask you to make the specific case for deletions. I can't see the argument for deleting links to other websites simply because they are critical of SSB. If there is a specific reason for the deletion of links I'd ask you to post it here so SW contributors can decide whether to follow the Wikipedia approach or not. --Bob Burton 20:09, 11 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Bob Burton, the reason is because the critical sites are not just critical, they contain potentially libelous information that could open sourcewatch up for a libel suit. Wikipedia realized this and I hope you will too. SSS108 21:01, 11 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Hi SSS108, I am unpersuaded by that argument. Can you point me to any legal case where the act of adding a link to a site, without republishing the content of it, has been deemed to constitute the act of publishing defematory content? I have never heard such an argument before and it strikes me as preposterous. If that argument was accepted no site would link to any other for fear that some content of another site could later be found to be defamatory. --Bob Burton 21:56, 11 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Well Bob, perhaps I am crossing lines. The contents from these potentially libelous sites were duplicated on Wikipedia. I see the same potential on this site. ArbCom, being fully familiar with Wikipedia policy ruled that these type of links could not be added to the article. Also, according to Wikipedia policy, Beyerstein, Nagel, Badaev and Steel are not reputable or reliable sources. They have not been published or referenced in reputable media. I guess sourcewatch has different standards and is more lax on what information can be included in the article, which is what concerns me. You are not concerned, so I will drop it. SSS108 23:16, 11 Oct 2006 (EDT)