The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
Sathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
With huge effort, the article received a more "neutral" tone.
While if the simple truth prevailed, we would see a completely different article, what we see now is lots and lots of "claims" of anti-Sai mixed with some true facts presented also as "claims".
Irony is that, indeed, the article confirms Baba's statement of internet being "like a waste paper basket". For anyone who knew him, this is crystal clear.
For those who do not know him, unfortunately the article ignores the huge amount of testimonials and published material about him and his life, while pays close attention to poorly produced propaganda against him.
Thus, the article is far far far away from being neutral in its point-of-view.
The percentage/amount of anti-Sai preferred topics is around 80%, while if Sai followers would write the article, 20% or less of it would remain. Not because there isn't enough to fulfill an article space (it is exactly the opposite - one must cherry pick among the huge amount of content available), but because this space has since long ago been dominated by anti-Sai POV people.
Paradoxically, this is not a problem, at all. Sai Baba strongly assured his lack of interest on collecting followers of having a big number of devotees. He several times insisted on NOT making propaganda of him. He boldly stated that, as long people turned themselves to the path of Love (and Truth, and Righteousness, and Peace, and Non-Violence), they would be doing wht he wanted - it does not matter if Sai is praised or blamed. It does not matter at all.
Only weak-minded people, like myself, would waste time trying to fix or improve his reputation. This also explains why the article does not receive more attention and effort from the devotees, to be improved and better reflect the facts.
Anyway, in my weakness I feel sorry that such a piece of disinformation exists in a publication which should be a source of information, and I sincerely hope it gets improved in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a terrible article. The criticism section is laughable for anyone that really new Baba. I was one of the people that turned it around about 5-6 years ago, don't remember how to use Wikipedia now 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If any one of you can add Reliable sources and follow Wiki-policies to make your changes, then by all means do. The Criticism section is well-referenced to a casual observer and is probably the only well-kept part, the rest is in need of cleanup though. Till then remember this is not a forum for general discussion on the topic, only for actual improvements to the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In these kind of articles, it seems standard to shift anything seen as negative into a Criticism and controversy ghetto, but does it really need a tag-on section in what seems to be an attempt to get the last word in? AndroidCat (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does seem like that but what are you proposing? we merge Criticism and Responses? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe merge them both into the main article? Or maybe allow a Response to Response to criticism section? In any event I rarely get involved these believer/non-believer time-sinks any more, preferring more productive wiki projects. Dropping it from my watchlist. AndroidCat (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)