Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

New York Times explains gold watch illusion

[Prime Minister] Rao's contacts with swamis have brought him embarrassment more than once. In 1993, he seemed moved during a visit to his native state of Andhra Pradesh when a well-known guru, Sai Baba, appeared to produce a gold watch out of thin air. But Indian newspapers had considerable fun at Mr. Rao's expense when film of the event that had been taped by an Indian state television team was played back in slow motion and revealed the Mr. Baba had employed sleight-of-hand techniques commonly used by magicians.

—John F. Burns (October 10, 1995). "India's 'Guru Busters' Debunk All That's Mystical". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/10/world/india-s-guru-busters-debunk-all-that-s-mystical.html. 

<-- Please keep this comment and the ref section at the end of the article -->

Primary and secondary sources

I have decided to start a new topic as I cannot see that Rumiton really understand my point about primary and secondary sources. As I see it, according to the Wikipedia rules primary sources are of restricted use and the article should not rely on primary sources. Rumiton believes that primary sources are unacceptable in principle. Rumiton believes that published SSB's discourses are a primary source and cannot be used in the article . I believe they are a secondary source for SSB's words and are very reliable to see what his claims were but very unreliable to take those claims for being true. Even if they are primary sources they can be used in the descriptive manner as it is formulated in the Wikipedia policy. And from this point of view published discourses of SSB can be used to check other secondary sources.

Here is an example. In the discussion section "Sathya Sai Baba's claims of divinity and avatarhood" the first quotation is the following:
I will be in this mortal body form for 59 years more and I shall certainly achieve the purpose of this Avatar, do not doubt it. (that means that he predicted his death in 2019 at the age of 93) 29.09.1960 Sathya Sai Speaks v.1 http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/sathyasaispeaks/volume01/sss01-31.pdf (see the very end of the discourse)

But in the article we have the following statement:
Sathya Sai Baba had predicted that he would die at age 96 and would remain healthy until then. Babb, Lawrence (1986). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 166. ISBN 1577661532. http://books.google.com/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC. "His present incarnation, he says, ... He will die at the age of ninety-six, but his body will stay young until then."

How would you suggest solving this contradiction? Would you discard SSB's words based on the words of Lawrence Babb or vice versa?
--Open 2 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just write over 90 years old. (Of course, there is an explanation behind the discrepancy and I think Robert Priddy has written about it. I have my own opinion about it.) Andries (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not how to write it but which source is more reliable. In my opinion, officially published discourses are the most reliable source for the actual SSB's words and everyone can refer to them and check. I don't know what the source was for Lawrence Babb's statement. It is quite unprobable that he himself heard that from SSB. Rather he read it somewhere or was told it. As the third party he is much more reliable in his analysis of SSB than SSB himself because SSB had a special interest to promote himself. But when it comes to the exact SSB's words, the published discourses are much more reliable, I think.--Open 2 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are going far beyond the job of a Wikipedia editor. If you want to write a book on Sai Baba or any other subject based on your original research, then go ahead and do so. If your book gets published and you establish a reputation in the field then you may be accepted as a reputable source, but until then you will have to rely on the other accepted sources that we already have. For example, neither you nor any of us know which version of that prediction is correct, it is just speculation. Maybe on this occasion the translator made a mistake (SSB never wrote or spoke in English), maybe SSB mumbled and was misheard, maybe he rethought it later and made a different prediction or retracted what he had said. The point that will not go away is that we are not qualified to write an analysis of the subject based on selected (by us) quotes. Lawrence Babb is. He has a track record of accurate and well thought-out commentary and a reputation to lose if he gets it wrong. We do not, we are anonymous editors. So, unless he is proven wrong on an important point, we stick with his version. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Babb was an anthropologist who studied the SSB community in New Delhi. He wrote down popular beliefs. One such belief was that SSB had said that he would die at 96 years. Babb is no expert in the claims by SSB. Andries (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No source is perfect, but they are still better than us, trying to interpret primary material for ourselves. Rumiton (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not consider this an important question. I understand that the age of death of 96 comes from the popular book by Conversations between SSB and John Hislop. This was a private converstation. Andries (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rumiton, I cannot agree that the quotation from officially published discourse where SSB predicted the year of his death is a sort of interpretation. After some consideration I do agree with you that the selection of quotes by me cannot be used for analysis or interperetation because I am not a reliable source, as an editor. You may think of some vested interest of mine to make this selection. But with regard to SSB predictions (as his exact words) I still believe that his officially published discourses is the most reliable source. Your argumentation about SSB's mumbling or being misheard does not work here. Because while his discourses being prepared for publishing the editor in the ashram took responsibility to check and clarify all doubtful words and inconsistencies. And he had a reputation to lose if he got it wrong and even to lose a position. So, I think he must have been much more accurate than Mr Babb.--Open 2 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just start a new thread/section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Please link there to this discussion. I can personally think of more important other issues for this article than this one. Andries (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am not sure what you meant by You may think of some vested interest of mine to make this selection but no editor is qualified to interpret a subject's written or spoken words, especially when the issue is contentious, and especially when there are a number of good, scholarly sources who have already done so. We would be trespassing on territory that is not ours. If you can not accept this, then Andries' suggestion is the best one. Take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Rumiton (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The thing is that Sai Baba's disciples also named 96 as the age at which Sai Baba would die, e.g. here or here and many others. So it's not a question of an outsider (Babb) making a mistake versus the presentation within the movement. --JN466 10:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy & criticism/response

I notice that the criticism and controversy section, which had been significantly longer, is now a few sentences long, while the response remains much longer. Why was that? I understand that the controversies didn't cast SSB in a pleasant light, but cutting it down to "The Vancouver Sun in 2001 reported that Sathya Sai Baba told his adherents not to browse the Internet due to allegations rapidly circulating on various Internet websites and in a few newspapers. In a 2000 public discourse, Sathya Sai Baba said, "These teachings (the Vedas) are highly sacred. Today people are ready to believe all that they see on television and internet but do not repose their faith in the Vedic declarations. Internet is like a waste paper basket. Follow the 'innernet,' not the internet."" seems inherently biased when compared to the much, much longer "response". I remember when the argument for a response section was made, and the key argument seemed to be that the criticism section was quite long, but the opposing view was not being covered. With that no longer being the case, the section is pointless; said criticism is non-existent outside the critical views section on his claimed miracles. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The allegations were deleted by a devoted IP on 25 October. [1]. I have restored them. Rumiton (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)