Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Sathya Sai Baba:
  1. Include a "Bibliography" section, with informations about his writings (the several "Vahini" books that Sathya Sai Baba has written)
  2. Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done)
  3. Improve the article based on Jossi proposals recommended by the arbitration commitee.
  4. Remove unreliable and poorly sourced material from the article
  5. Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order)
  6. Write about the Prashanti Council in the section organizations
  7. Ensure only professional critics are sourced, rather than unfounded authors who otherwise specialize in other areas.
  8. Add more interesting pictures, such as that of his books, centers etc.
  9. Add a photo of Sathya Sai Baba (done)


News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

[edit]

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


References[edit]

This article is ridiculously biased[edit]

I am aware of the history of this article.

It was a purely anti-Sai panflet.

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 189.15.162.174 (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 24.171.103.85 (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)

Responses to criticism. Really?[edit]

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)