Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

"Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha"

The sentence above is taken from the article. It is not appropriately marked as a quote (if that's what it is), nor is the source indicated. Therefore, a reader familiar with the punctuation conventions must come to the conclusion that the author of that particular passage is referring to him/herself. (A reader who is not familiar with punctuation will simply be confused as to WHO exactly is the "we" referred to.)

Please, correct the passage.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

The state of things here is a SHAME A closer look to the "reliable sources" being used for the Sai Baba article reveals: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/faq.html#faqs_14 http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/ http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Findings/exbaba-findings.html Was the ArbCom list of suggested sources influenced by malicious biased users, with great ability on spining? Is Wikipedia currently being used as theirs instrument?

Do you think this article follow Wikipedia's policies? Why?

Just asking. I'd like to hear everyone.

I always have enjoyed all I have read in Wikipedia until now because I find the 2nd paragraph of Sai Baba's biography is not objetive or neutral, it's like it has been writen for a member of Sai Baba's organization, maybe you can do something about that.

I am not sure of the rules to be followed before submitting this article... so forgive me... but i need to tell that the wikipedia has dissapointed me greatly especially regarding the article of sai baba. Sai baba being the guru for many people around the world is rendered holy by them. It is indeed a sad sight to see that this holy figure is being critized greatly in the current article. It is ok if the contradiction points are stated under a seperate section but it is EXTREMELY hurtful for many of us as he is being generally critized all along the article. The sources that are used to present the reasons of the negative side of sai baba, are very individual based. How about the thousands of service activities being done by the organization? they are not stressed at all. The free medical services (2 hospitals), educational services, even the great water project recognized by the Indian government is also not stressed. The thousands that has been given a chance to continue the livehood by the occupations provided by the organization and thousands of aid given to the poor, needy and thye sick is not at all highlighted. In fact, sai baba is one of the rare guru that has not left India (besides Africa) but has followers all over the world. Where on earth can you find Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and many more sitting side by side calling each other brothers and sisters. The oneness and peace that is sought after by the whole world is there in that ashram. The claims of some people that sai baba is not a genuine guru may be acceptable, but how about the thousands or maybe millions who have full faith that sai baba can lead them to liberation? why aren't the majority's opinion be focused better?? isnt this a bias concept that only those accesible and have authority are able to express their opinions? Besides many books written by the followers of sai baba are not used but rather books against him are centralized as a issue of this article. Is this a site to promote liberation of thoughts and opinion or surprassing others thought by building their mindset? The previous article was a very fair article but now itlooks as though the wikipedia is not an information provider but rather form their circle of information. Thank you for showing your true colour. Remember you'll have dissapointed many around!!!

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village.[citation needed]"

First arbitration rulings

1) No original research : Wikipedia:No original research, Policy in a nutshell

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

2) Content in biographies of living persons

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons addresses the editing and content of biographies of living persons.

3) Writing style, biography of a living person : Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

5) Critical information in biographies of living persons

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Critics provides for vigilance regarding malicious editing.

6) Removal of poorly sourced negative material

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons provides that unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful to both the person or organization maligned and to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Final_decision

Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals

1) Finding of Facts :

Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced. ::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced

2) Rulings on NPOV and sources:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable source[s]. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source. Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Wikipedia's prohibition on original research provides that editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia articles document what reliable sources state about their subjects. Especially in controversial cases, citations should be complete enough that readers may evaluate them, and specific enough that the supporting material can be easily retrieved and identified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources

3) Proposals: .

The following are the sources which the arbitration commitee recommends the editors to use as reference to this article. These sources were proposed by Jossi to the arbitration commitee.

• Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, ISBN 0813379695
• The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds.
• McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
• White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 pp. 863-878
• Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 116-124
• Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press, ISBN 0520061632
• Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
• Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 123-158
• Sangha, Dave & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
• Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1.
• Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, Taylor and Francis
• Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
• Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
• Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang. available online in English
• Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse, ISBN 978-1420841619
• Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
• Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba)
• Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review.

Second arbitration rulings on using Robert Priddy as a source

Arbitration commitee passed a ruling saying Robert Priddy cannot be used as it is unverifiable original research. The following is the resolution which was passed.

6.1.1) Robert Priddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a former Sai Baba devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba. He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy.

RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As per the above second arbitration commitee ruling I will be removing all the Robert Priddy references from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Please don't add them again. ::RadiantEnergy 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Although RadiantEnergy seems blissfully unaware of the fact, the title of Priddy's second book is clumsily misquoted in the above-mentioned Arb. Committee ruling. Their disparaging reference to Library holdings may therefore also be unreliable. The exact title is quoted in the Wikipedia article on 'Robert C. Priddy' as: End of the Dream: the Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. Collected Articles of Robert Priddy. Podanur, Tamilnadu: Premanand, B., 2004, 594 pages; Series: Skeptic Book Club No. 19.

Ombudswiki (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)  

Remedies from the Second Arbitration:

• One of the remedies was to ban editors who were strong Pro / Critic of Baba and also other were warned about using poor negative sources.
• The ruling says "The remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles".

Radiantenergy (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources related to the article discussed in BostonMA Mediation Discussions:

• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Premanand as a Source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Salon.com as a Source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Reporting Unsourced Stories

Radiantenergy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Violations

User_talk:White_adept is disrupting this article by violating arbitration rulings again and again. He is adding Robert Priddy references again and again and keeps breaking the second arbitration ruling on Robert Priddy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy. He has made more than 190 ediis to this article from Jan 8th 2009 to Jan 17 2009 based on unreliable sources such as "The Findings by Bailey", Robert Priddy etc. Restructured the Criticism section based on unreliable sources with out discussing on the talk page first . The source "The Findings" has already been discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation its unreliable source as per wikipedia policies and cannot be used in this article. ::RadiantEnergy 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling The Times, The BBC, The Guardian, Danish TV Documentary, American Consulate, Indian Express, The Hindu, Tehelka, BC Skeptics, Premanand etc. all "unreliable sources"? When using 'the findings' for identification of the source's perspective on the topic - what I put forward are not fringe theories but things completely in line with the the mainstream perspective on the subject. The Findings's perspective is very relevant here and not something we can ignore because the whole controversy was sparked in international media by the document - as reliable sources note.

Robert Priddy is a respected professor of philosophy and sociologist and his writings have been used as such in leading Indian skeptical journals such as Premanand's. Anyway - if you look at things from that perspective Narasimha biography etc are all violate WP:RS. But the sources such as "the findings" are being used to identify the perspective of the source on the topic - which indeed is of relevance and well within what wikipedia policies allow us to use. It is more acceptable because it is completely consistent with the mainstream perspective.

White adept (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An earlier post of mine on the issue:

Priddy is a retired University of Oslo, Professor of Philosphy and perhaps a leading expert in the field - based on his exposure and extensive writings - much more so than many of the other sources used in the article - including self-published "biographies" written by devotees etc.

The Findings - is very relevant because of its notability. As Michelle Goldberg points out[1]:

It all started with a document called "The Findings," published in late 2000 by long-term devotees David and Faye Bailey, whose marriage was arranged by Sai Baba. Part of the nearly 20,000-word piece is given over to evidence that Sai Baba fakes his materializations and doesn't magically heal the sick -- revelations that seem self-evident to nonbelievers but provoke fierce debate in devotee circles and blazing headlines in the Indian press.

According to wikipedia "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena." Here the The Findings is much more than that - it is what this international-controversy all started with. So, ofcourse what it states is relevant - its not something you can just cover-up...

Then if we go by what you are saying Haraldsson, self-published sources claiming miracles etc, self-published biography, etc all should be completely expunged first - they absolutely are not even remotely as notable as this work. Strange that you dont have a problem with the "cobra under bedsheet source" but don't want this centrally relevant document to be mentioned.... How come you smoothly ignore and never raise a question about the poorest quality sources - self-published by "sai-devotees"? White adept (talk)

Infact am not against cutting down on robert priddy - but am sure I can source the same stuff to Premanand's journal - a leading journal in India. White adept (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

White adept, Wikipedia is encyclopedia and its not a place for pushing your POV views. It does not matter what you think of Robert Priddy or The Findings by Bailey or Basava Premananda. These sources have been discussed since 2006 first in detail during Mediation by BostonMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation and later during First and Second arbitrations. Its very clear from your arguments that you have n't read any of the earlier mediation discussion related to this article. You cannot adding these sources because you think its reliable that's pushing your POV views.

• Priddy as a Source: Second arbitration passed a ruling on Priddy. They call Robert Priddy sources and related websites as attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy. You have been violating this ruling by repeatedly adding Priddy references again into this article along with other edits.

• "The Finding by Bailey": This source also has been discussed in detail during Mediation By BostonMA and its been called as unreliable source. In the mediation The Findings was called unreliable as it was never published by reputable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

• Basava Premananda as a Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Indian_Skeptic_as_a_Reputable_Source. This is detailed discussion initiated by BostonMA regarding using Premananda as a source. Neither Premananda's book nor the Indian Skeptic was accepted as a reliable source to this article.

You have been disrupting this article breaking arbitration rules using poorly negative unreliable sources such as Robert Priddy, The Finding by Bailey and Basava Premananda. You have done major changes to the article based on these unreliable sources. Please familiarise yourself with the earlier discussions related to this article. I have provided all the links to the earlier discussions. Please remove these unreliable sources Robert Priddy, The Findings by Baileys and Reference from Basava Premananda from the article.  ::RadiantEnergy 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Case on User:White_Adept for breaching Arb.com rulings and for Repeated Violations

Here is the link to the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings.

This link does not contain any reference to White adept or arbitration concerning him. Please correct the link so the arbitration can be found 84.215.31.172 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Results of the Case: The Enforcement commitee has warned User:White_Adept that if he continues to edit war on adding questionable sources then further sanctions would be considered. 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Important decisions about the Sathya Sai Baba article in the coming week

• This is to inform everybody that we will be making a very important decision about the Sathya Sai Baba article in the coming week as the current article is breaking all of the WP:BLP rules.
• All those editors / users who have been involved so far with the article please see the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Sathya_Sai_Baba_-_Breaches_in_the_new_template_.2F_current_version_rewritten_by_User:White_Adept_and_your_feedback and give your feedback to these proposals.
• This is a time to get involved if you are a contributer to this article. Everybody's views on these two proposals will be heard as long as their views conforms to the WP:BLP rules.

Radiantenergy (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this hyperactivity and activism by RadiantEnergy quite alarming. (Who, by the way, are "we"?) Can this recent re-ignition of previous fires be related to the decision to pardon User SSS108 for his previous inappropriate behaviour, which brought the article into disrepute?

PLEASE consider the following opinion, which I had already decided to publish before I came across this manic flurry of opposition to the recent IMPROVEMENTS to this unbalanced article:

I (and, I am sure, many others) applaud the recent long overdue improvements to this hitherto truth-deficient Wikipedia article on the controversial guru Sathya Sai Baba. If further injections of balanced information (and an improvement in the sparse bibliographical references) can be administered, the Sathya Sai Baba article may finally cease to be an acute embarrassment to the majority of unbiased Wikipedia editors, who provide us all with such useful and RELIABLE information on so many topics. (Incidentally, the suggestion to incorporate the 100 per cent partisan article on the 'Sathya Sai Movement' (which is a blatant advertisement for the Sathya Sai Organisation posted by persons unknown) may indicate the true motives of the proposer.)

If there really is to be a vote on these issues (by whom?), please take all this into consideration. RadiantEnergy seems to be in an indecent anti-wikipedian hurry to influence the content of the article - as User SSS108 was until he finally received his merited Arb. Com. punishment a couple of years ago.) Ombudswiki (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

references

)

Wikifying

I've found the article in the list of those to be wikified, but I'm not going to wade in without posting here first. Is it possible that some of those who are already actively editing on the page could clean it up a bit as they go along, rather than relying on someone coming new to the article? If that's not possible, then I will help out, but please post here to tell me how you think I should go about it. Remember, wikifying is not just making internal links but also involves improving article structure. I see that there is a criticism section here, and that could be problematic. In many controversial articles, the criticisms are worked in with the rest of the text. But if I start to do that I fear that I will be accused of being a fanatical supporter or zealous opponent of the article subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start wikifying now. We are in the process of making some major decisions related to the article. I am hoping it will be done the coming week. Depending on how it goes then we can think about wikifying Radiantenergy (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Since January 23rd, I have made over a hundred edits to the page. I've paraphrased some direct quotes, worked at some undue weight issues, and cleaned up citations. Reverting to an earlier version will not necessarily solve this article's problems. We should instead address all pending issues in a systematic way, avoiding the loss of improvements which have been made since the 15th of January. Here are some points to consider:

• You'll notice that the three websites you mentioned above are no longer cited in this article. Some were primary sources, others were self-published sources, and yet others were convenience links to independent media. I've removed all Robert Priddy references from the article, which all happened to be self-published sources.
• Undue weight is currently a problem with this article. There is much that can be done about this, such as paraphrasing direct quotes, and introducing alternative sources for more varied sourcing. "The Findings", "Secret Swami", and a few others are mentioned an inordinate number of times, and this should be taken into consideration.
• As for the BLP issues, they are indeed a legitimate concern. Be reminded that if at any point you see a statement which is defamatory and unsupported by a secondary source, you are fully entitled to remove the offending passage from the page.

Since I started editing here, I've been trying to ensure that subsequent changes to the article are supported by policy. If you feel that policy is not being enforced here at any time, feel free to drop me a message on my user talk page, and I'll be glad to try and help resolve the situation. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We will revert back to an older version, possibly much older. I tend to agree that criticism should not be in a special criticism section, though I also think that this can not be fully avoided in this article. I think user:Spidern recently made it worse in this respect by moving critical comments of teachings out of the beliefs and practices sections to the criticm and controversy section. user:Spidern Revision as of 18:43, 27 February 2009 Andries (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From reading the section, I found it difficult to understand precisely what the beliefs of Sathya Sai Baba's followers actually are. I moved the paragraph in an attempt to allow the section to explain first what the beliefs were before branching into criticism. However, I'm willing to listen to the input of other editors if they disagree. If nobody replies here, you could start a new talk section or even go the route of opening a request for comment seeking further input, while stating your case. In a related matter: there is a difference between criticism and controversy, and we should have respective sections for them instead of lumping them all together. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting to an older version of the page is even going to be an option at this point. There is a certain benefit in having an uninvolved editor make changes to an article. It contributes towards achieving WP:NPOV, a state which the article is certainly not in at the moment. Be bold and feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Keep us posted here and we'll advise along the way. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, I totally disagree with your argument. The problem is not going to be solved with just removing a few attack websites. If its that simple or just involved making some edits here and there I would n't have taken so much pain in going for an arbitration enforcement case on User:White_Adept. You don't understand the problem. Please familiarise yourself with all the earlier discussions. I have spent a lot of time reading the earlier discussions and do know how much disruption has been caused to this article. How come if you so strongly support User:White_Adept's changes you never got involved in the arbitration enforcement case?

I believe reverting to a better version is the only step towards solving the disruption caused by User:White_Adept 300+ edits based on unreliable sources. I would suggest you to stop editing the current article trying to fix it. Your reasoning that you don't want to revert because you made 100's of edits is not a sufficient one. If we don't revert we are losing the article which has been maintained all these years and years of other editors contribution as the current version is nowhere close to the older template and is breaking all the rules.

Remember the article is clearly a Wikipedia:Libel. This article will be reverted to a better copy as its breaking all the rules. I don't mind even opening another case and getting other people involved about the current state of the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you point out exactly where the libel is occurring, and attempts will be made to fix it. Please do not make the mistake in thinking that I support White Adept's edits in general, I have cautioned him about improper sourcing from when I first stepped in here. Reverting the page to an earlier version goes against the Wikipedia ethos, and is counterproductive. Libel concerns are a serious matter, and I will do whatever possible to address your concerns. Please point out all instances of improper sourcing, lack of sourcing, or insufficiently neutral tone in the current revision and we will proceed from there. ←Spidern→ 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1. There is still some material sourced to the Findings instead of the reputable sources that treat the Findings. (It used to be reliably sourced in older versions)

2. Remarks about Dale Beyerstein are not reliably sourced. (A short comment about Beyerstein used to be reliably sourced)

3. Paragraph about a corpse is sourced to Indian skeptic. (Indian skeptic was rejected as a source during mediation). I do not think that this can be reliably sourced

Andries (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andries, could you point out an article version in which these statements were reliably sourced, or place a draft here on the talk page of the relevant sections which we could then transfer to the article? In the meantime, I think the in-link link to the findings website should go, and I'll take it out. Cheers, Jayen466 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let this run a bit then, and come back if the wikifying tag is still on in a week or two. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, You said "Reverting the page to an earlier version goes against the Wikipedia ethos". I would like to remind that [[WP:BLP] clearly says when the WP:BLP is violated then you can revert back to better version - "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic".

You also said earlier that we will lose the improvements done to the topic since January. I really don't see any improvements I only see several pages of criticism added based on unreliable sources such as "The Findings" and "Basava Premananda" inspite of the second arbitration warning his editors to start adding positive content based on Jossi Proposals.

The changes you have made did not make a lot of difference to the article. It still breaks all the WP:BLP rules. The current article is no where close to the old article. You can compare for yourself the old and the new template. I don't have to pinpoint as there are so many changes which were added to the article related to Criticism.

In the Writing style of biography rule says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style. "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability". But the current article lays so much information on Criticism based on minority views.

The following examples are examples of Wikipedia:Libel - basically defaming the well known public figure based on unreliable sources. The current article is definitely a defamatory of Sathya Sai Baba.

• I still see the murder images taken from the main source Robert Priddy and Basava Premananda - unreliable sources still in the article. User:White_Adept himself agreed that its main source was Robert Priddy and Bassava Premananda. That's still there.
• There is a whole section about Murders again based on Basava Premananda just removing the reference attack websites link and leaving the content is not fixing anything.
• Here's another example of your editing not fixing the issues. You removed the reference Priddy but did not remove the contents added from reference Priddy. Here is the statement you did not remove from the article referencing Priddy. "The CID interrogated Subbappayya twice, despite the ashram authorities demanding they present a valid authority to do so." - This is from the Murder Section in the article. How is this fixing the article and restoring Wp:BLP rules?
• Here is yet another example. You removed the following reference from section 'Raising Funds" - ""Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can", M Seetha Shailaja" - saying it is self published source. Then why didn't you remove the contents added from this reference? There is a whole paragraph added from this reference which still exists in the article now with out a reference. I really want to know the answers for these biased edits?
• The huge section from "The Findings" is still in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27
• A whole section responding to Criticism had been removed. I can go on and on.
• Your changes have n't made much of a difference and I am wondering why you are against reverting User:White_Adept changes but never got involved during the arbitration enforcement case if you so strongly support his edits.

I am definitely think you are supporting User;White_Adept edits based on unreliable souces. If you want take responsibility for his irresponsible edits. I don't have a problem. We can open that arbitration enforcement case again and you can defend all his edits and the reason behind adding pages of negative contents based on unreliable sources.

I am still continuing my plan about reverting the article as you are the only one opposing it and still did not give a valid explanation why we should continue with this article with too many WP:BLP broken rules and wikipedia:libel. Your edits have not made a big difference in restoring the WP:BLP rules. The other only option is to propose for deleting this article. WP:BLP says "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed". I would like to revert it to a better version rather than proposing for deletion. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all I will kindly ask that you stop accusing me of supporting the edits of another editor, as it is simply unproductive to do so. I stepped in here after the arbitration case in an attempt to work towards resolution between both parties (I didn't even know that the article existed before then). I am trying to improve the article, and have worked towards fixing undue weight problems. I restructured the page and have consolidated existing sources so that the weight of the sources can clearly be judged, while before we had numerous duplicates and it was difficult to do so. I'm doing everything I can to address your concners; but you cannot expect another editor to bend over backwards to satisfy your own needs. Expecting me to address a problem before I completely what the problem is is also unreasonable. My reasoning behind keeping is that content should be preserved whenever possible as opposed to wiping it out. Now that you have pointed to specific issues, I will attempt to address them. ←Spidern→ 22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are too many WP:BLP issues with the current article. Nobody is wiping out the content as you mentioned. We are only trying to revert to a better copy which has been maintained for all these years.

• The new template has been added only from Jan 8th 2009 with a lot of controversial material. I think reverting to a better version is the only way to undo the damage caused by [[User:White_Adept]'s 300+ edits.
• The new template has totally wiped out the old copy which has followed the WP:BLP better. The old template has been wiped out by User:WHite_ADept template wiping out years of editorial work and I am not going to agree with that.
• I am still planning on doing the revertion. I cannot keep pin pointing all the issues to you there are too many issues and too many rules which are broken. You also don't seem to be aware of any of the earlier discussion (Mediation by BostonMA) - which talks clearly about the Sathya Sai Baba sources as you keep justifying the current article.
• You still haven't explained your edits. You removed references and left the contents still in the article. We have a couple of paragraphs of unsourced material with out reference since you removed the reference and did not remove the contents. That's like adding another problem to this already controversial article. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:57, 2 Ma

(unident) Murder image is not a violation of Wikipedia:Libel. Andries (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"radiantenergy", most of the sources I added ( kindly verify), are from BBC, The Times, The Guardian, anthropologist Lawrence Babb etc. They are very reliable. There are some sources - (both positive as well as negative)- which border on WP: SELF - we can and certainly should take them out. Let us not engage in meaningless personal accusations. I don't think reverts would be constructive - there is a lot of relevant and well sourced info here - that we should be careful not to blank out through reverts. Also - if you could be specific on what issues exist - including any perceived issue with any source - I think there is a good opportunity here to resolve the issues through discussion. White adept (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that the article on Sathya Sai Central Trust from Sreeja M is an article from Thehelka - one of India's leading investigative News Agencies. The murder section is based on reports from leading news agencies such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, The BBC, India Today amongst others sources- The murder scene images had appeared in India Today as well. White adept (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:White_Adept - How come you are suddenly getting involved after missing all these days. You never answered to the arbitration enforcement case and also you never answered to the repeatedly violations. You are talking about improvements to the article after causing so much disruption completely wiping out a good old template? Radiantenergy (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to characterize all contributions that you don't agree with as "disruptive" - I did contribute a significant amount of objective information and analysis from high-quality sources. Some sources, I agree, should not have been used - but I was not aware of the arbitration committee decisions when I used them in my inital edits. I think these issues with the article have been addressed quite well by User:Spidern in his recent edits - and I think you can count on him to make this article in-line with WP:NPOV.

White adept (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now you are questioning my involvementt after causing so much disruption making 300+ edits to a controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations based on unreliable sources.

I never said I was new to wikipedia. Any user out there watching the article and its discussions for a month will know what we are talking about. Neither Wikipedia nor this article is a rocket science.

Difference between you and me while you were denying those arbitration rulings and adding banned sources I spent a lot of time familiarising the earlier dicussions. There are n't too many negative weak sources. These have already been discussed in the earlier discussion like - Mediation by BostonMA. This was pointed out by User:Andries right in this talk page to you. When you were in denial I really spent time looking at these sources and the earlier discussions.

You still have n't explained why you were missing during the arbitration enforcement case.

I also have another question for you. I am still curious why you suddenly started editing the Sathya Sai Baba the most controversial article making 300+ edits in a matter of 15 days - adding only negative content based on unreliable sources.

Do you have Wikipedia:COI with the subject of the article Sathya Sai Baba?. Any reason why you were trying to defame this well known public figure and wiped out a good old template

Radiantenergy (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between banned user "wikisunn" and "radiantenergy"

"radiantenergy", may I ask if you were involved in editing this article before? Since you seem so passionate about the topic, and seem very familiar with wiki editing as well as previous arbitration committee decisions - I presume you certainly are not new to wikipedia or this article. May I ask if you have been involved in editing this article before - as an IP perhaps? Were you involved in edits/discussions on the topic? If you are new to wikipedia - could you explain your familiarity with wikipedia - as evidenced by your initial edit summaries? If not, could you kindly clarify why you previously refrained from editing this particular article - despite your apparent passionate interest in the topic? White adept (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On top of this talk page I see: "The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages."

I request "radiantenergy" to kindly clarify why I see a great deal of overlap in subjects of interest, edit patterns etc. between Wikisunn's edits and his. For instance - the articles both have 'contributed' to center around: Sathya Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. I see a similar pattern in initial edit summaries - especially user page creation. The nature of the contributions are also strikingly similar in several cases. For instance:

• Your edit(Edit summary:Books on and by Swami Vivekananda ) : [2]

• Wikisunn’s edit(Edit Summary: Added Books on and by Swami vivekananda) : [3]

• Among other similarities I find both of you requesting arbitration help from the same admin[4][5]

Also, the role you play here now is very similar to the role that was played by "wikisunn"...

Just pointing out a few similarities. You wouldn't, by any chance, be the banned user wikisunn.. would you? I would like to let you know that while you may keep multiple accounts - if you are using one to circumvent an arbitration committe decision, or with one acting as a sock of the other, your edits here would be in violation of wiki policies. Please allow me to clarify that I am not accusing you of violating WP:SOCK - and am hoping you would be able to explain the similarities. White adept (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

White adept - This time you have gone too far. Its pathetic that you are trying so desperately to frame me with a banned user because I am questioning your disruption to the article and your absence from an arbitration enforcement case?

You are now resorting to cheap tactics of trying to desperately frame me with a banned user. Just beacause I said I contributed to article like Vivekananda or RamaKrishna Paramahamsa does not make me a socket puppet of anybody. I have also now contributed to other articles like Robert Frost, Mango etc. Are you going to try and frame me with other banned editors if any from these articles? Your argument is like saying User:White_adept is User:Andries's socket puppet because both edited the Sathya Sai Baba article adding the same banned material like Robert Priddy.

I have already explained who I am. There is even a section about me in this talk page. I am not anybody Socket Puppet. I have no idea who this User:WikiSunn is. I have seen his name in the second arbitration discussions. I have nothing to do with this banned editor User:Wikisunn. Stop resorting to such cheap tactics and getting away with what you did.

Radiantenergy (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry . And please answer the concerns I raised. White adept (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:White_Adept - If you continue this harassment and incivility calling me as some banned user inspite of my detailed explanations. I will open up a case of incivility and harassment on you in wikipedia. This has gone too far and has to stop. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any accusation against you - I find even other editors pointing out that 'prima facea' evidence suggests sock activity. Dont you think it would be a whole lot better if you could just calmly answer the concerns raised and have things clarified for once and for all? In your history of just a couple of months am the third editor to raise this concern. Anyway I did not mean any offense - and you obviously have the complete freedom to address and clear up the issues raised or to just ignore it. White adept (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• The reason why I was questioned twice before was because some users assumed that I was new to wikipedia looking at my history. They had questions about how I was familiar moving around wikipedia being a new user. I had already addressed those questions to their satisfaction.
• As I said before I have been contributing to a bunch of articles since 2007. I will update my userpage and add all of those contributions when I was unregistered user so that I won't be confused with some banned users.
• Another question that's raised is about my knowledge of sources related to this article. I bet it was n't easy task. I had spent a couple of weeks in January 2009 reading every line of the mediation discussions which was pointed out by User:Andrioes in this talk page and also the 1st and 2nd arbitration case. There are n't too many sources which are being discussed. The same controversial sources which were discussed from 2006 in BostonMA discussions is still being discussed. After reading these discussions I also added them in the talk page to bring everybody's attention to all those earlier rules and discussions.
• I think I have explained myself very well. What I will not tolerate is being wrongly accused as some banned user or some body's socket puppet. I will not remain quiet listening to such wrong accusations. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriately sourced material deleted

• I have deleted material sourced to the "Findings" website as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Remedies.
• Please review the 2006 and 2007 arbitration findings (principles, findings of fact and remedies) and do not reintroduce material that contravenes the arbitration remedies currently in force for this article. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Final_decision, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Final_decision.
• If there is further material in the article that directly contravenes the arbcom restrictions currently in force, please delete it or amend it to the extent it can be sourced appropriately.
• If my removal is in error, please advise here or on my talk page. Jayen466 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you are now getting involved in this article - Can you please give your feedback to the proposals here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Sathya_Sai_Baba_-_Breaches_in_the_new_template_.2F_current_version_rewritten_by_User:White_Adept_and_your_feedback. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't meaningfully comment about whether it would be better to go back to an old version or not. I don't know the article well enough.

Having the pictures of the dead in this BLP seems indefensible. It might have been defensible if Sai Baba had been held criminally responsible for their deaths. This not being so, I'd say these pictures would perhaps be appropriate in a subarticle on the killings, but not in this BLP. Jayen466 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This picture which you are referring is directly sourced to banned Robert Priddy and Basava Premananda and his book. Basava Premananda and his book were discussed in detail during the mediation discussion by BostonMA and was never accepted as a reliable source. Here is the mediation link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Indian_Skeptic_as_a_Reputable_Source. This picture violates WP:BLP rules. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Pictures do not have to be sourced to reputable sources. Andries (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these snapshots of the crime scene have been shown in the BBC documentary "Secret Swami." And according to many analysts sai baba and his organization could be directly involved in the murder as well as the ensuing cover up. Remember the killings were in his quarters and in his own bedroom. White adept (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you see, "could be directly involved" is not the same as "were proven to have been directly involved". We can use these pictures in the article on the assassination attempt and the controversy it caused.

Many armed assailants of prominent people have been shot. Wikipedia does not show pictures of their dead bodies in the BLPs of those they tried to attack, nor would any reputable encyclopedia. Jayen466 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your answers.

I see that I, Robert Priddy, am referred to above here by RadiantEnergy as being 'banned'. This wrong impression I want to correct. I understand that what is banned is (only) links to my websites on the Sathya Sai Baba page. In my apostasy I wrote about my experiences, and I hold that these are still entirely truly represented in every single respect in my pages. I have also provided massive documentation of many of my assertions, scans of documents and much more. I recommend my websites to anyone interested in learning about the activity of the Sathya Sai Baba cult and those like it. Wikipedian administrators should be aware how they propagate misinformation, exercise censorship and induce mind control through 'teachings'. They exclude all critics and they work through proxies (and sock-puppets?) to remove all information against them from any place they can should go to my Sathya Sai Baba web pages at [6] and my blog at [7] -- ProEdits (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an explanation

A group of Baba devotees tried to find explanations for the sexual acts of Sai Baba referring to tantric sexuality and to healing spirituality in order to change energies from/of former lifes. According to those explanations Sai Baba need not be considered an abusive perpetrator.

Your text: →Looking for an explanation: rm non-published source which is primary)

I don't understand what you want to say, why the text and the reference should not be used. Can you please make another effort to make yourself understood?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.197.122 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

you can use salon.com as a reference after rewriting a bit.Andries (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Austerlitz: Please see primary sourcing policy which concerns your edit. The issue is that the website you posted is not an objective third-party source. The website reads, "This is a pro-Sai website, written and translated by devotees", which decries the presence of objectivity here. But more importantly, the source is not published or authoritative. Note that the same sourcing criteria applies to using websites that belong to critics of the Sai Baba movement. ←Spidern→ 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.84.223 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version

Andries and Radiantenergy, are you still in favour of reverting to the earlier December 2007 version? I am beginning to think I could be persuaded to support that as a first step. The video clips that were introduced earlier this year could be reintegrated after such a revert, if editors agree that they are appropriately sourced and add value (I think they quite possibly do). Jayen466 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still in favor of reverting to an earlier good template. Both December 2007 and Jan 5th 2009 are good templates which are more reliably sourced compared to the currrent article with lot of controversial material and wikipedia:Libel information. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should be reverted to December 2007 because the version of Jan 5th 2009 contains a mistake in the summary as I have argued again and again here on this talk page and elsewhere (to the arbcom). I am sorry about the effort that user:Spidern spent on improving a version that will probably not be further used. But the current version is flawed; it does not treat The Findings that many reputable sources say is an important document and it gives a one-sided treatment of the organizations.

What bothers is me is that nobody seems to be interested in removing factual mistakes but only in minimizing or maximizing criticism. Andries (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lets revert it to the December 2007 version. I think the current article definitely has problems, issues and is not balanced. Since now we have more editors favoring reverting to earlier version lets do it.

Radiantenergy (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I haven't had more time and energy to devote to the article. If Andries and Radiantenergy are agreed that it would be best to go back to the older version, I would endorse their choice. Jayen466 20:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely against it - This article contains over 20 k of sourced info - from sources such as The BBC, The Times , The Guardian etc - which the previous almost puerile version did not. They absolutely are not libel but what is central to the person's notability. Reverting to cover up all this well sourced information with specious arguments would amount to plain vandalism. I don't think User:Andries would be in support of covering up all these info, nor do I think the contributor User:Spidern would be. White adept (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against this current article being written as Wikepedia:Libel. Nobody is trying to cover up anything. I would like to remind everybody that this is an encyclopedia and this article is about Biography of Living Person.

• We are not trying to file a charge sheet on Sathya Sai Baba. The new template / current article looks like one to me.
• The previous article also had quoted from BBC and Guardian but the criticism was balanced and right now its not in this current article.
• The whole point of second arbitration was to warn editors about using poor negative material and also to improve the article with positive content. The new template has only added the same weak unreliable sources and more negative unreliable sources which were already dismissed as unreliable in BostonMA 2006 mediation discussion.
• The current article still has lot of POV views presenting only a WP:Undue criticism on Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Libel information.
• There is no teaching section? Positive sections like 'Response to Criticism has been removed'.
• Undue criticism is given more weightage based on a few minority sources and view. There are more than 5000 books on Sathya Sai Baba but the article does not reflect any positive aspects in Sathya Sai Baba's life.
• The well known public figure Sathya Sai Baba is presented like a criminal who has commited crime based on conspiracy theories from Basava Premananda though these theories were never proved and also Basava Premananda was never accepted as a reliable source.
• The improvement effort done during the past few days have been reverted. The article is again back heavily relying on the same unreliable sources such as "Findings" and other Wikipedia:Libel information.

I still think reverting to the well sourced good old template is the only solution. There are too many controversial issues with this current article heavily emphasizing on WP:UNDUE criticism and using unreliable sources and Wikipedia:Libel information. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy wrote "Undue criticism is given more weightage based on a few minority sources and view. There are more than 5000 books on Sathya Sai Baba but the article does not reflect any positive aspects in Sathya Sai Baba's life."

Radiantenergy may be right that the article suffers from undue weight but some of his arguments that I copied in italics hereabove are flawed.

1. There are many reputable sources that voice (sometimes trenchant) criticism of SSB. These are not minority views.

2. Yes, there are many books about SSB, but they are mostly by devotees. I read many of them and they generally cannot be used for this article because they suffer from reliability problems and extreme bias. Writings by devotees cannot be considered as forming a majority view, because they cannot be considered as belonging to an informed majority that tries to be fair. (As an analogy, I guess there are a postive books by Nazis about Hitler but we do not use them for the article about Hitler)

Andries (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Andries, my point is this article must be written in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Right now the criticism is more than 70% of the whole article. The article still has several unreliable sources. The article still lacks the positive aspects of Sathya Sai Baba's life. I am not saying we need to use these books written by devotees but we can still use other reliable positive material like the list Jossi provided. My point the article is not balanced. For example the link you provided earlier from citizendium Citizendium article is much better and more reliably sourced compared to the current article. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

In this edit, White adept (talk · contribs) effectively undid over an hour and a half of editing with an edit summary of "The Indian Express" is to India what The Times is in London - it is not "waekly sourced". Cutting central and relevant commentary from BBC, Times etc down to a line serves absolutely no purpose." While this may justify one or two reversions, it does not counter 17 edits. I'd like to ask that you please you not undo a slew of general improvements to the article without arguing the merits of your reversions individually. It is impossible to constructively improve the article if editors revert each other without due justification to their reversions. Otherwise, edits in this manner may be considered disruptive or tendentious. ←Spidern→ 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A very well-justified revert

Spidern, the very well sourced material you blanked out - with no apparent reason - is what I took several painstaking hours to contribute. When you give no reason for blanking out such well sourced material and then you turn around and place the blame on me for not allowing it to be blanked - it is hard for me to appreciate. Not only did your edits end up blanking material from The Hindu, The Indian Express, Lawrence Babb, etc., you also ended up blanking out paragraphs of info from The BBC etc - "trimming" them down to single-line petty misrepresentations of the original source. All with specious edit summaries. Doesn't that border on vandalism? Review your edits here: [8] White adept (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I explain my edits as summarization of reliable sources in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. I realize it took time to find relevant quotes and place them in the article, but we are not an indiscriminate hub of quotes; instead we summarize secondary sources to provide a neutral commentary. Frankly, I can understand concerns raised here about undue weight on the article because it makes excessive use of quotes, something which stands in the way of neutrality. We cannot give undue weight to individual quotes. Please argue the merits of your reversions on the basis of individual edits, otherwise we will endlessly revert and nothing will get done. ←Spidern→ 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you review the definition of vandalism. Vandalism is intentional harm done to an article, an attempt to degrade the quality of an article. If one assumes good faith, only blatantly harmful edits are to be considered vandalism. What you call "petty misrepresentations" are an attempt to make the article more concise and not give undue weight to individual sources. Overburdening the reader with direct quotes compromises neutrality. Please carefully parse the vandalism policy in relation to bold edits. ←Spidern→ 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern,, I repeat , you are essentially blanking content. [Review your own edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=275325161&oldid=275318803]. How many parapgraphs have you deleted. In some cases replaced with single line watered down misrepresentations? Several paragraphs of central content. We are writing an article here - not a collection disconnected sentence "summaries" most of which are your personal interpretations and interpolations of the perspective of the original source. People need, background, information and content for the article to be of any use to them. Secondly you have deleted paragraphs such as the one sourced from The Indian Express. The 3RR doesn't apply to obviously vandalistic edits. i can point out specific instances where you grossly misrepresent the source - but am hoping you will go through your edit for yourself and understand what is wrong with it. White adept (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, you're at 5RR now. By reverting every single edit I made to the page (which included adding a new source and information), we have reached the unfortunate stage of impeding progress to the article. ←Spidern→ 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are blanking out critical commentary in the name of sumamrizing. Nobody is interested in your personal interpretations or summarries here! People read the article for information- to understand the perspective of respectable sources - not to read distortions of these sources. Am shocked by how you distorted The Times article "Suicide Sex and The Guru" . You have apparently used this section from The Times article:

"Sai Baba's teachings, however, are a collection of banal truisms and platitudes. The most famous utterances he has made in a six decade-long career as a living god are "Help ever, hurt never" and "Love all, serve all". Few are likely to argue with such a simplistic and universal moral code. He broadens his appeal further by allowing devotees to continue practising their own religion while paying homage to him."

as source for your words:" Sai Baba has said that his followers do not need to give up their original religion.[27] His followers view his teachings as syncretic (uniting all religions). Some famous sayings of his are, "Help ever, hurt never" and "Love all, serve all"."

As if these are famous sayings attributed to this person? How much mre can you distort? The Times article said his teachings are platitudes like "..." and the most famous saying made by him are just petty platitudes like ".."

Again I repeat - the reader is looking for information - find good sources - contribute - not blank out information. White adept (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note. If you find anything violating WP:SELF or sources that have been identified as Self published by the arbcom please let me know. I myself will fix and replace with better sources. White adept (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that user:Spidern goes too far in summarizing and condensing. And I disagree with the edit of user:Spidern of removing scholarly references (Kent & Babb) and leaving only the journalistic references (The Times). Remember that these were the sources that were recommended by the arbcom. Andries (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall removing any academic sources. Can you provide diffs of me doing this? ←Spidern→ 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Babb in the 'teachings' section - for instance. There are few academic sources in the article and this one, I noticed, was removed in your edits. Am not sure if Andries is referring to the same.

White adept (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please provide a diff and I'll be glad to discuss reasoning behind the edit. ←Spidern→ 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to review all of Spidern's edits but will say that I share Spidern's BLP concerns, and that I have no confidence at all that the general tendency of the edits made by White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) serve the interest of creating an NPOV article. They feel more like anti-Sai Baba activism. This is not what Wikipedia is about, as the prior arbcom cases made clear.

Andries, do you still feel we should revert to an earlier version of the article, or do you now think it would be better to work with what there is? What is your feeling about the way the article is going? Jayen466 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I am not engaged in activism - but if what reputable sources - BBC or Times - come across sounding "anti-baba" we can't just water it down or cover it up- can we? If am engaged in any activism it is only against distortion or cover up this material - if you look at the history of the article you will notice to what extent it has affected objectivity of the article and that is why I take strong stance against anything that hinders objectivity or distorts objective info. Remember that what is "neutral" is what is objective ( the standard for measure being Reliable Sources - not what is made to sound 'so-so'. Regarding the murders section( if that is the BLP concern you are referring to above) - how about splitting it into a new article 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam or something and having a stub here? That way we needn't blank any info and BLP considerations can be effectively addressed. Can you go ahead start the page - it would be great if you could find further info and good sources on the subject. I think the topic certainly satisfies WP:N.

Again, I think what matters here is not anti or pro edits but staying true to what reliable sources like Times or BBC or reliable scholarly sources tell us. White adept (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

White adept, the main problem with the article right now is undue weight, mostly due to selective direct quoting. It is for that reason that we have some editors advocating reversion to an earlier version. If we do not summarize the quotes to provide a succinct, neutral commentary on the subject, we will ultimately fail in increasing the quality of the article. I suggest that you re-examine the mass reversions you made and at least try to argue on a per-edit basis. ←Spidern→ 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand direct quoting could be creating a problem - not WP:UNDUE - but more having to do with presentation. What we need to do is properly paraphrase - in sections where there is excessive quoting - taking care to keep the info. In other cases where information is best conveyed through a quote I don't think there are major issues in keeping the quote as such.

A succinct sentence that completely fails to convey what the source has said is of no use. Further, readers new to the topic need background, information and data to appreciate something being said. I wonder if we would be able to do that through "succinct" summaries. This is the major issue I see with your recent edits.

If you are arguing we are giving too much room for the allegations - I think these allegations, being absolutely central to the person's notability in International Media, is not something we can just sideline. Of course we could further expand the teachings section, etc with scholarly content - and attempt to strike a balance thus.

White adept (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayan, I see you have made some major changes to the murders section. The content you changed was sourced to this BBC documentary. You commentary doesnot support what the documentary says. Relevant sections of the BBC documentary can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

White adept (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Should excessive quoting be paraphrased and trimmed?

Template:RFCreli Does the article suffer from undue weight issues? What can be done about it?

Note that the article version that Spidern is asking for feedback on is this one, not the present one. Jayen466 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved users

Comment White adept (talk · contribs) classified my bold edits as "vandalism", "page blanking", "petty misrepresentation", and even "sneaky vandalism". He initially performed five reversions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). While every attempt was made to justify my edits as summarization and paraphrasing, he continued to perform mass reverts (6, 7, 8) representing a number of edits which he didn't agree with, describing them in one edit summary as "intentional distortion". BLPN threads were opened by myself [9] and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) [10], which have yet not received a response. What should be done about the state of the article? ←Spidern→ 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spidern that we have gross problems of undue weight in this article. For example, the "murders/killings in the ashram" section, in which White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added graphic images of the corpses of the four knife men killed by police, devotes one paragraph to the incontrovertible facts, and seven to conspiracy theories, mostly by avowed opponents of the subject. The events were controversial, and that controversy must be covered, but the amount of room given to sheer guesswork and supposition by the subject's opponents is indefensible. In addition, numerous other conspiracy theories floated at the time are ignored – that the Sangh Parivar was involved, that the killings were the result of a power struggle between two factions of Sai Baba's followers that took place behind Sai Baba's back, etc. (see p. 98 here). People who spoke up for Sai Baba, like the Indian prime minister at the time, or just the reamining facts, are not given anywhere near the same room. It is just striking that the controversy section, extensively quoting the subject's opponents, makes up more than two-thirds of the overall article. I'll say this again: these are gross violations of NPOV and BLP. Jayen466 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved users

Comment by uninvolved user RegentsPark

I was aware that the Sai Baba is a controversial figure (though I had only a vague idea of what the controversies are) and that an article on the baba would not be complete if it excluded these controversies. However, I must admit to being surprised at the extent to which the article incorporates material on these controversies considering our fairly tight BLP norms. Generally speaking, the requirement that negative or controversial material be included in an article only if it is well sourced also includes the commonsense provision that we should still exercise care that undue weight is not given to this material, especially if the material relies on opinions and other non-factual statements. The previous version of the article (this one) has clearly crossed the line and some, but even the present version (this one) is problematic. The section entitled "Killings in the ashram", for example, is written more as an investigative reporting piece rather than an encyclopedic piece because it pieces together opinions and adds extraneous information designed to discredit (e.g., the 'passing the necklace' reference), and leaves the reader with the conclusion that the baba's role in the incident was more than just his being an innocent target. I would much prefer to see that entire section rewritten along the following lines: A paragraph (or paragraphs) that outline the proveable facts of the incident followed by a paragraph that summarizes the controversy (the CBI report and well-sourced opinions). The entire section should be about half what its current size. (Also, it is generally more neutral to use phrases such as 'according to the police' rather than 'the police claimed'.) --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Re the "Killings in the Ashram" section, there has also been support at the BLP noticeboard for shortening this section in this article and housing the present material in a separate article: BLP noticeboard thread Jayen466 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Any suggestions what such an article should be named? Jayen466 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Do you mean what the section should be named? --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 01:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Material cited to the "Findings" deleted, again

I have once more deleted the material sourced directly to the "Findings" document, as per the 2006 and 2007 arbcom decision:

"Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him."

I have reverted to Spidern's summarised version which seems closer to WP:DUE. Jayen466 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was reintroduced by mistake( un-intentionally ) when restoring other very well sourced material. I had pointed out this was likely and requested that it be pointed out. See my post above. Also a source can be used for identification of its perspective - especially a notable one like this. Anyways am pulling out of this. Leaving this article, I just want to request editors to please not intentionally cover up or water down material from Reliable Sources such as The Times or The BBC as has been done here:[11] - personally I believe there is an ethical aspect to it too. When we cover it up for this person we are as much responsible for the harm inflicted by him to society as well as innocent, unsuspecting people as he himself is. For, if it weren't for people covering up this person's misdeeds - this would have ended much long before. There are possible sock puppets functioning here - a sock of an old banned editor - see what I pointed out in a previous post above. Analysts and critics like Priddy have had a hate and wretched lies propaganda unleashed against them by the cult. Even editors who apparently wanted well sourced criticism to be objectively covered on these pages have not been spared. They have been subject to threats, blackmail and slander ( proof of which am willing to share with admins.) Anyways I just don't think me trying to contribute here is worth my time.

White adept (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppeteers...?

I'm beginning to see a distinct sock puppet pattern here. Is it time to semi-protect the page against new editors? Bhimaji (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the second paragraph

This paragraph is a terrible opening and contains information that could be in other sections. The ebassy warnings are no longer relevant as the US Department of State and The website of the American Embassy in Delhi have no current warnings inrelation to sai baba- why is this not listed. No current governmets are taking any action against Sai BABA. THE FACTS IN THIS ITEM ARE INCORRECT. This paragraph should be intergrated to other sections or removed. It is very sloppy and not neautral.

Several allegations including sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround Sathyanarayana Raju.[8][9] A BBC documentary notes that such controversies have persisted for at least 30 years. [10] According to the BBC, "The scale of the abuse has caused alarm around the world... Governments around the world are deeply concerned and are beginning to take action warning their citizens about Sai Baba." [10][11] The website of the American Embassy in Delhi, in what they confirm is a direct reference to Sai Baba, [10] warns Americans visiting Andhra Pradesh of a "local religious leader" who reportedly engages in "inappropriate sexual behaviour" with young male devotees. [10] The embassy states "most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens." [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfidel99 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sathya Sai Baba article is a very controversial topic. Please be careful when making edits to this article. Please don't delete any major sections with out discussing with the other editors in the talk page. That's considered as Vandalism in Wikipedia.
• To answer your question about the above mentioned second paragraph. It will probably fit well into the criticism and controversy section.
• I see that you have added new section. Please always provide reference and citation. Also please read through the earlier discussions related to this article it will help you in determining correct reliable sources for this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why this substandard Wikipedia article needs very special attention from the Executive Body

Three hitherto intractable problems are largely responsible for this perennially inferior article, with its history of instability, endless and sometimes impassioned edit wars, bureaucratic filibustering on the Discussion Page and prolonged Arb. Com proceedings. The Sathya Sai Baba article is, and always has been, a very bad advertisement for Wikipedia.

Problem 1.

Wikipedia’s basic principles of anonymous access and intervention by anyone, regardless of their capacity to contribute usefully, or their motivation.

Problem 2.

The basic ignorance at the root of many contributors’ and admin interventions. For example, this “gem” has been sitting on the “to-do list” of some admin person on the Discussion page for about 2 years. “Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done) Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order).”

[That bleat about the $99 cost - and the 2 year wait - is particularly pathetic in an encyclopedia. Try a Library or a Sathya Sai Baba Centre! Failing that, why not read available references to some of the interesting contents of both books on the Internet, and then check them against the text of the books themselves?]

To spell it out for anyone who doesn’t get this simple point: these are two absolutely basic texts and reputable sources, which (along with others equally ignored and probably not even known about by Wikipedia’s so-called Sathya Sai Baba experts), should have been consulted from the beginning for an up to date and balanced picture. (Even the favourable presentation of Sathya Sai Baba is inadequate!)

Equally unusual in a purported factual article, the Bibliography list offered (by the Arb Com, I think) is woefully inadequate – and is no longer even listed on the same page as this text, for those readers with the healthy curiosity of checking information sources for themselves. (How many readers will take the trouble to click on the two Bibliographical links?)

Problem 3.

The interference of unhelpful propagandists and trolls, like the one who, not many days ago, contributed this anonymous rant to the latest seesawing edit war when he or she replaced (for a few hours) the whole article with a half page partisan advertisement for Sathya Sai Baba, which reveals far more than (s)he may have intended and which must be yet another Wikipedia-sourced embarrassment to the Sathya Sai Organisation:

“The way this page is treated as a dumping ground for personal attackes on Sai baba instead of a proper bio- shows the limitations of wikipedia –you people who addind this crap are sick –get a life- just factual information for people to read.Sai baba has performed miracles most common -vibutu

In at least on hour this article be returned to hate page Do you feel power by writing untrue stories accusing a guru of sex and murder –you should be ashamed you perverts.

We have an army of fair people who rewrite the page each time you sicos invested with your poison.”

As a first step, Wikipedia should try to devise a means of weeding out ‘fair people’ of this sort. Requiring Users to give a real name, or their email address, instead of a cowardly pseudonym, should be on the next agenda for Wikipedia’s senior executives, who by now must have heard of this egregious case. Other remedial steps must be left to their collective wisdom.

Ombudswiki (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Evidence from Sathya Sai Baba History page:

• (cur) (prev) 17:32, 9 March 2009 Bob bobato (talk | contribs) (56,794 bytes) (Reverted un-encyclopedic vandalism of article. Mrfidel99 , if you want to protect the page, getting rid of the article wont help you any.) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 17:29, 9 March 2009 Bob bobato (talk | contribs) (empty) (Undid revision 276017792 by Mrfidel99 (talk)) (undo)

Ombudswiki (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that years of edits have shown this article has not been helped by anon contributors and contributors new to Wikipedia. This article needs permanent protection. Andries (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit is evidence of what exactly?bob bobato (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to revert the current article to a better version from Involved Editors

There has been discussion about reverting to a better version of the article in the past couple of weeks as the current article breaks many Italic textof theWP:BLP rules. We have decided to revert to the December 2007 version as it uses more reliable sources.
Consensus from Involved Editors:

• User:Andries: Agreed to revert the article.
• User:Radiantenergy: Agreed to revert the article
• User:Jayen466: Agreed to revert the article
• User:Spidern:Disagreed
• User:White adept:Disagreed.

Since the majority of the involved editors have agreed to revert to a better version I will be reverting the article to the December 2007 version.

Radiantenergy (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did User:Jayen466 agree? Further, you, it seems quite clear, are a mere sock. Also I dont see any clear consensus for revert from Andries. Also see statement from User:Ombudswiki] below which clearly shows the consensus is not in favour of any such revert.

White adept (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article was reverted only after consensus from Andries and Jayen.

The following was Andries comments:

I think that the article should be reverted to December 2007 because the version of Jan 5th 2009 contains a mistake in the summary as I have argued again and again here on this talk page and elsewhere (to the arbcom). I am sorry about the effort that user:Spidern spent on improving a version that will probably not be further used. But the current version is flawed; it does not treat The Findings that many reputable sources say is an important document and it gives a one-sided treatment of the organizations.

What bothers is me is that nobody seems to be interested in removing factual mistakes but only in minimizing or maximizing criticism. Andries (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The following were Jayen's comments:

I am sorry I haven't had more time and energy to devote to the article. If Andries and Radiantenergy are agreed that it would be best to go back to the older version, I would endorse their choice. Jayen466 20:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Revert_to_earlier_version. Also As I said before if you continue to accuse me as a Sock I will start the harassment and incivility case on you. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, in your edit summary you stated that there were BLP violations with the prior revision. What are these outstanding BLP concerns on the last revision? ←Spidern→ 01:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, I had added a detailed discussion about these WP:BLP issuess even before in this same talk page. I do appreciate your bold edits and the improvement effort you undertook to improve the previous version of the article. But again that article still suffered with inaccuracies from unreliable sources and with WP:Undue criticism. Also I would like to point out that decision to revert was based on consensus from all the 3 editors. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, I realize that a consensus was reached before you made your edit, but you stated in your edit summary that it was done due to WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure which ones specifically that you were referring to, because I thought that I had addressed direct points which you brought up before. Also, the current revision makes considerable use of primary sources which are also under scrutiny for use here. By reverting, you restored much of this unreliable sourcing, which was my main reason for opposing it to begin with. ←Spidern→ 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the version of December 2007 contains weakly sourced material critical of SSB. Some of the responses to criticisms in that version are weakly sourced. Again, I am sorry for the effort you put in a version that will probably not be used further, but the Dec. 2007 version contains critical material of which every word has been discussed and weighted. The version that you tried to improve did not come close to that. Andries (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this version contains some material sourced to primary sources. (Some of which completely unnecessary sourced to primary sources) Andries (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, Are you referencing to the source "Narayana Kassturi" - when talking about the use of primary sources? When I was reading through the BostonMA mediation section I came across a whole section discussing whether to use Kasturi as a source. I will search and sent you the link. We can have more discussions related to that. 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"... the Dec. 2007 version contains critical material of which every word has been discussed and weighted." (stated by Andries, above)

As many readers will see, that ludicrous editorial claim further exposes the muddled grasp of the topic and the factual ignorance of the three Users (the triumvirate of Radiantenergy, Andries and Jayen466) who have sponsored this substandard version of the Sathya Sai Baba story (which, in addition to what it does not tell the reader, shows some interesting errors and contradictions caused by insufficient attention to the important biographical source Love is My Form). BTW, the English style of this version is poor.

Congratulations to White adept for at least trying to introduce some more facts into this unbalanced (and still low quality) article. Commiserations to him also for the many valid paragraphs (of his hard work) which have now been hidden under the carpet (temporarily?) by these three over-zealous domineering sweepers ("the majority of the involved editors"!) along with the more debatable points and those which do not fit in with Wikipedia's arcane system. However, some 'reputable' references and writings, like those of Professor Dale Beyerstein, have now been inserted into the Sathya Sai Baba Archive for researchers to consult, and some glimpses of the BBC documentary Secret Swami have been offered.

It is to be hoped that other more open-minded Users may eventually be attracted to the task of "researching" (the r-word!) this important controversial subject.

Ombudswiki (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a single version of this article uses Love is My form Feel free to improve the article using that source. Feel free to insert more of the BBC documentary. Please stop the senseless fence sitting.

On second thoughts, the biggest weakness of the Dec. 2007 version that it goes too much in details that are only interesting for (ex-)devotees. It should try to put things more in context and try to offer an overview. Andries (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to editors. Watch out for promo material being added by people like "radiantenergy" - who very likely is a sock of a banned user. Every day they manage to cover things up with self published propaganda is a day this man and his henchmen clowns make more money. So they'll resort to any no-good low-down trick for it. They function like the mafia - they pay money to the locals - make them financially dependent on them, buy out the local police, and creates a cover of "service" (by advertising dysfunctional projects undertaken for their own benefit and to promote baba-worship-tourism to their place) to bring in more money from unsuspecting people. Look at the extent of propaganda and advertisement they have been doing here on wikipedia. I think it is time we made clear to them that this is an encyclopaedia - not a place for their cheap propaganda. Note that the last edit by radiantenergy essentially cleared out all sourced information, all pictures, videos etc. I request editors here to please not allow such cover-up of content. White adept (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To Andries: From your favourite 2007 version:

“Sathya Sai Baba is listed in the 1942 school record of Bukkapatnam.” (Check that Note.)

It is not worth taking up your invitation to write anything here since it can be torn down by vandals or partisans at any minute. You yourself, abetted by just two others, vapourised 14 months of other people’s hard work (and filibustering) yesterday! I notice the recent version is back again today. But tomorrow? And the next day? Meanwhile, while people like you play your verbose games in pursuit of Wiki points and renown, the old version that you have foisted on readers remains incomplete and unbalanced.

What I do propose to do, from my privileged vantage point (rather than an uncomfortable fence) is to continue, until quality improves, to point out -- from time to time -- the sort of shortcomings that plague this article (as a piece of public information) and the inexplicable and stubborn failure by some contributors, including you (alas!), to study and incorporate information from important sources.

(Did you ever make a direct reference and hyperlink to Professor Beyerstein? Have you read his e-book? The newcomer on the block, White adept, obviously has, and he has shared the relevant (and reputable) information with interested readers.)

Ciao for now. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had read Dale Beyerstein's ebook and yes, I had used it long time ago for this article with a direct reference, but it was removed long time ago because not considered a repubale source. If you think that Dale Beyerstein study is a reliable source then I suggest you ask for comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Andries (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I dare you to tell Professor Beyerstein that his writing is not reputable, Andries! You have obviously NOT read the 100 pages carefully, OR you have allowed yourself to be browbeaten by other 'wikicrats' who have not read the book. However, to atone for your sins of omission, you would be better employed reading (carefully) through the list of materials in the following section and composing more reliable articles both on Wikipedia and Citizendium.

Ombudswiki (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

hello Ombuswiki, I had read Dale Beyerstein's study and I think it is a good one, but reputability in Wikipedia is not so much determined by the contents of the sources, but more by the question where and how it was published. This is just one instance where the strict applications of policies and guidelines on this article leads to a result that contradict common sense. Andries (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is just one instance where the strict application of policies and guidelines on this article leads to a result that contradict[+s] common sense."

What a gem! Thank you for that admirable indictment of some of the Wikipedia principles, Andries. I will quote you on this. Now it's time for you to get back to that lengthy required reading list! It may mean you have less time for notching up these little edits, of which you seem so inordinately fond, but it will be for the good of the article and your own reputation. Happy reading! I'll pop back in a few months to see if you've managed to improve the article. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Reading List for the Study of Sathya Sai Baba (2009)

If you wish to produce a worthwhile balanced article on Sathya Sai Baba, please consider the following sources:

1. Apologetic

a) by Sathya Sai Baba:

Sathya Sai Speaks, Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (http://www.sssbpt.org). A careful study of Volumes I – XII (of a total of 36), bearing in mind that these are translated and heavily edited versions of his frequent Telugu Discourses.

b) by the Sathya Sai Organisation

Chaitanya Jyoti. The Millennium Museum depicting the Message and Mission of Sri Sathya Sai Avatar, Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Organisation, 2001.

b) by others: Fanibunda, Eruch B., Vision of the Divine, Bombay, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications, 1976.

Ganapati, Ra.Baba: Satya Sai, Parts I and II, Madras, Divya Vidya Trust, 1984-1985. [Adapted from earlier versions in Tamil]

Gokak, V. K., Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. The Man and the Avatar. An Interpretation, New Delhi, Abhinav, 1975.

Haraldsson, Erlendur, ‘Miracles Are My Visiting Cards’. An Investigative Report on the Psychic Phenomena Associated with Sathya Sai Baba, London, Century Paperbacks, 1987. [One of the best known general books on Sathya Sai Baba, by a non-devotee visiting parapsychologist. The book is often erroneously regarded and quoted by devotees as a scientific endorsement of Sathya Sai Baba’s materialisations. There is a 1997 enlarged edition.]

Hislop, John 1978: Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba, San Diego, Birth Day. 1985: My Baba and I, San Diego, Birth Day.

Karanjia, R. K., 1994: God Lives in India, Puttaparthi, Saindra. [The 1976 Blitz articles and other shorter ones from the same year]

Kasturi, N[arayan] 1961-1980: Sathyam Sivam Sundaram. The Life of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 4 vols., Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications, 1961-1980.

Murphet, Howard, Sai Baba: Man of Miracles, London and New Delhi, 1971. [Reprinted by Samuel Weiser, York Beach, 1973 and subsequently]

Padmanaban, R. et al , Love is My Form. Vol. 1 The Advent (1926-1950). Prasanthi Nilayam, Sai Towers, 2000. [Contains new information. Often referred to as LIMF. Written by a team of devotees headed by a successful Puttaparthi publisher of Sathya Sai Baba books (and ex-photographer of SSB). The projected volumes 2-6 were abruptly cancelled in 2002.]

Ruhela, S. P.: 1976: Sai Baba and His Message, New Delhi, Vikas, 1976. [rev. ed., 1995, New Delhi, Vikas]. 1997: Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Press (1972-1996), New Delhi, UMANG Paperbacks. [The only collection of critical (and a few other) Indian press articles and summaries to date. The bulk of the articles are from the period 1976-1996.]

Sandweiss, Samuel H., SAI BABA. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist, San Diego, Birth Day. Schulman, Arnold, Baba, New York, Viking Press, 1971. [An early independent view by a non-devotee]

Steel, Brian (ed.), The Sathya Sai Baba Compendium. A Guide to the First Seventy Years, York Beach, Samuel Weiser, 1997. (A devotee act of seva (service) – parts of which, as an ex-devotee, the author now disowns. An alphabetical reference work on 300 topics (many of a factual background nature, for non-Hindus) relating to the life and teachings of Sathya Sai Baba as presented by him and his major commentators in English.)

Vijayakumari, Smt., Anyatha Saranam Nasthi. Other than You Refuge is There None, Chennai, [n.p.], 1999. [Available from Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust]

2. Academic

Babb, Lawrence A.: [The doyen of academic research on Sathya Sai Baba]

1983: ‘Sathya Sai Baba’s Magic’, Anthropological Quarterly, 56, 116-123. 1986a: Redemptive Encounters. Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, Berkeley, University of California. 1986b: ‘The Puzzle of Religious Modernity’, in India: 2000. The Next Fifteen Years, ed. James R. Roach, Riverdale, Maryland, [n.p.], and New Delhi, Allied Publishers, pp. 55-79.

Beyerstein, Dale, 1992-3: Published in instalments in Indian Skeptic, Vol 5, No 7 (November 1992) - Vol 6, No. 3 (July 1993). 1994: Sai Baba’s Miracles. An Overview, Podanur, India (c125 pages). Available online: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba Christopher, Milbourne, Search for the Soul, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell, 1979, pp. 114-116 [and pp. 104-113].

Hummel, Reinhart 1985a: ‘Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba’, New Religious Movements, 9, No. 3, September 1985, pp. 8-19. [See also http://www.dci.dk/en/?article=572&emne= (from the Dialog Center in Denmark)]

(The) Indian Skeptic, Vols 1-2, 1988-1989, http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html

Kent, Alexandra, 2005: Divinity and Diversity: A Hindu Revitalization Movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen, NIAS Press. [Nordic Institute for Asian Studies]

Klass, Morton, Singing with Sai Baba. The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1991.

Lane, David Christopher,http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/saidebates.htm

Mangalwadi, Vishal, The World of Gurus, 2nd ed., New Delhi, Nivedit, 1987. [1977, Vikas]

Palmer, Norris W., ‘Baba’s World: A Global Guru and His Movement’, in Gurus in America, ed. Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes, Albany, SUNY Press, 2005, 97-122.

Spurr, Michael J., ‘Visiting-Cards Revisited: An Account of Some Recent First-Hand Observations of the ‘Miracles’ of SSB; The Role of the Miraculous’, Journal of Religion and Psychical Studies, 26, 2003, 198-216.

Srinivas, Smriti, In the Presence of Sai Baba. Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement, Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2008. [an academic sympathiser]

Urban, Hugh B., ‘Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism’, Religion, 33 (73-93), 2003.

White, Charles S.J., ‘The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of Indian Saints’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXXI, No. 4 (August 1972), 863-878. [Reprinted in Ruhela and Robinson (eds.), Sai Baba and His Message, 1976, pp. 40-66.] This is the oldest Western scholarly article.

3. Critical

Bailey, David and Faye, The Findings, Conwy, North Wales: private publication, 2000. (See also http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/findings.html, www.saiguru.net and http://saibaba-invigilator.blogspot.com) The single most influential stimulus to the critical research, protest and lobbying undertaken over the past eight years. Written by two very prominent ex-devotees, it presents allegations of sexual abuse and of faked materialisations by Sathya Sai Baba.

BBC TV, Secret Swami, 17 June 2004. Channel 2 series, This World. Director / Producer: Eamon Hardy.

Brooke, Tal c1976 / 1979: Sai Baba. Lord of the Air, Delhi, Vikas. And various other versions of the same story, including: 1984: Avatar of Night. The Hidden Side of Sai Baba, New Delhi, Tarang Paperbacks. 1990: Lord of the Air. Tales of a Modern Antichrist, New York, Harvest House. 2000: Avatar of Night. Special Millennial Edition, Berkeley, CA, End Run Publishing.

Brown, Mick 1998: The Spiritual Tourist. A Personal Odyssey through the Outer Reaches of Belief, London, Bloomsbury. (See especially pp. 25-94.)

Conway, Timothy, ‘My Concerns about Sathya Sai Baba’: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba_my_concerns.html, 2006.

Falk, Geoffrey D., Stripping the Gurus. Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment, e-book, http://www.strippingthegurus.com, 2005. See Chapter IX, ‘Scorpion Man (Satya Sai Baba)’, pp. 70-75.

Gogineni, Babu R. R., ‘Sex, Lies and Videotape’, http://www.iheu.org, 1996.

Goldberg, Michelle , ‘Untouchable?’, www. salon.com, 25 July, 2001. http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/07/25/baba/index.html

The Indian Skeptic, www.indian-skeptic.org/html [See also Premanand, B. and the 10-year Index (1988-1998), ed. B. Premanand, Podanur, 1999.]

Nagel, Alexandra H. M. 2001a (August): 'A Guru Accused. Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile', at http://www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net. An early detailed commentary on the sexual allegations of 2000. See D. Bailey above. 2001b: 'For and Against Sathya Sai Baba on the Internet', on www.exbaba.com Another useful early account of the new burst of critical activity in the late 1990s and, in particular, 2000. The bibliographical references are valuable.

Premanand, B. [= Basava] (Premanand is the President of the Indian Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), an indefatigable public speaker, and an expert magician. He succeeded Dr. Kovoor in this position and has been Sathya Sai Baba ’s principal critic and implacable debunker in India for over three decades. His energetic and wide-ranging criticisms of Sathya Sai Baba have only recently begun to be seriously examined by Westerners.)

1988-1989: (The) Indian Skeptic, Vols 1-2, 1988-1989. See http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html (or the 10 Year Index) for details of a lengthy correspondence on Sathya Sai Baba between Premanand and the academic, Professor Erlendur Haraldsson. These volumes of the journal also contain some related correspondence from Professor Beyerstein to Haraldsson. 1990- Many articles in The Indian Skeptic. 1994: Science versus Miracles, Vol. 1, Podanur, Indian CSICOP. The prominent Indian Rationalist, who has given many public demonstrations to Indian audiences, offers instructions on how to perform a large number of ‘miracles’ that are not uncommon in India. He devotes a whole chapter to ‘Satya Sai Baba’s Miracles’ (pp. 58-64). 2001: Murders in Sai Baba’s Bedroom, Podanur, Indian CSICOP. See also: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.html

Priddy, Robert, End of the Dream. The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma, Podanur, India, 2004. (A retired academic and ex-devotee and ex-Sathya Sai Organisation official, Priddy is the most outspoken and by far the most prolific and persistent of the post-2000 group of critics of Sathya Sai Baba and the SSO, collectively known as ‘The Exposé’.)

Randi, James (A famous American magician, rationalist and dedicated debunker of occult and supernatural claims.) 1995a: The Supernatural A-Z. The Truth and the Lies, London, Headline. On p. 270: two paragraphs on Sathya Sai Baba’s claimed miracles and materialisations including Randi’s conclusion as a qualified magician that “… examination of films and videotapes of Sathya Sai Baba's actual performances show them to be simple sleight-of-hand ...” Randi’s website is http://www.randi.org. See especially his commentary for 8 December 2000 and the Newsletters for 3 May 2002, and 13 July 2003.

Shepherd, Kevin R.D., Investigating the Sai Baba Movement. A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism, Dorset, Citizen Initiative, 2005.

4. On Shirdi Sai Baba

Rigopoulos, Antonio, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi, New York, State University of New York Press, 1993.

Shepherd, Kevin R.D., Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, Cambridge, Anthropographia Publications, 1986.

Warren, Marianne, Unravelling the Enigma. Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism, New Delhi, Sterling, 1999. Revised edition, 2004. ISBN 81 207 2147 0.

References to Sathya Sai Baba on “anti-cult” and cult study websites

Apologetics Index, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s11.html F.A.C.T. Net, www.factnet.org/cults/Sai_Baba/Bhagavan_Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba.htm

Freedom of Mind Center (Steven Hassan), www.freedomofmind.com/reseourcecenter/groups/s/sathya

I.C.S.A. (International Cultic Studies Association) http://www.icsahome.com

I.N.F.O.R.M. [Information Network Focus on Religious Movements], London, ‘About Sathya Sai Baba’]. (See http://www.inform.ac.)

The Rick A. Ross Institute, http://www.rickross.com/groups/saibaba.html

Note: For many more references and annotations, see: Brian Steel, 'An Annotated Bibliography for Research on Sathya Sai Baba in Three Parts': http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_links/saibababibliography.htm

Ombudswiki (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Section title should be "Killings in the ashram", not deaths in the ashram

People were killed. They did not die of old age. Deaths in the ashram happen very often and are not notable because the ashram is very large. Please remove the vague euphemism. Andries (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Recomended sources for theological discussion of Sai Baba movement

• Ramstedt, Martin (2004). Hinduism in modern Indonesia: A Minority Religion Between Local, National, and Global Interests. London: Routledge. p. 267. ISBN 0-7007-1533-9.
• Howe, Leo (2005). The Changing World of Bali: Religion, Society and Tourism. New York: Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 0-415-36497-3.
• Klass, Morton (1995). Ordered Universes: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-8133-121. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

←Spidern→ 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

The neutrality of this article is in question, as it seems biased toward different sides, depending on which section one is reading. Weasal words such as possibly, apparently, claims etc, need to be replaced. There is some unreferenced material that should be referenced or removed (citation needed tag). Almost every section under "Criticism and controversy" has some POV, weasel words or unreferenced material. Added the templates so you all know where to start next. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permanent protection?

I agree with Ombudswiki that one of the reasons why this article has made little and deteriorated is because of the many anon accounts and throw away accounts who made bad edits. Shall I request permanent protection? Andries (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. Please go ahead with the request. I am also of the opinion a permanent semi protect would be of immense help in improving the quality of the article. There is constant washing away of info and addition of propaganda from anonymous IPs. White adept (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let know your opinion

I think a lot of info has been lost - some through good faith edits and some through IP vandalism - in the current version. This I think, is the reason behind all these tags. I'd like to get consensus from established users on which version they find is better:

• The one now.
• Before changes in January
• The version on March 4th. With almost all information intact. [12]
• A highly summarized version of the March 4th page[13]

White adept (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion, is The March 4th version - with any weak sources removed and further substanitated with sources such as The Vancouver Sun article would be the best. Please voice your opinions below. If there is a clear consensus then we can revert back to that version. White adept (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the March 4th version. I notice a substantial drop in POV statements and weasel words. That being said, I still see some. So a good copy edit would be called for after the revert. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Andries, Ombudskwiki and other editors too .. please let know your opinions on this. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know knothing about this man, but it is hard to believe he is the bad person the page depicts him as, for me the page is 90% critical, I suggest the critics have their say of about 25%. The article should not be about attacking this man. It seems their is some sort of vendeta here. Tommyxx (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Special page for excerpts of proposed sources

I created Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. Feel free to add. (You can find a lot in the archives or the history of this article). Andries (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

sai baba the Molest King

could some one verify this for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpoPDVDT10

there are 6 parts... i have given the first one the rest will be available right next to this video. please verify this and bring such highly "controversial" impostors to light.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.53.0 (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested restructuring

Let me introduce myself, so that any biasedness of mine can be judged by the community at large. My family have been devotees of Sai Baba since 1999. I personally follow the values he teaches(vegetarianism, human values, etc) out of reason. My experiences with the miracles will not be mentioned since they are unverifiable and hence irrelevant. But no, i did not get anything materialized from his hand. Any queries can be directed to me when i figure out a method of communication.

Intention of writing this is because I just checked back and found it incredibly biased. I believe that a wiki article should be presented in the following format:

Summary Content table Facts Opinions References

Each section should be as complete as possible and in unbiased a manner as possible. Now the thing is this, the page for Sai Baba is approximately 50% negative allegations. Just look at the scroll bar in the browser you are using.

Ok, for the facts, I have lots to add in. Mainly the charity projects. The water project is the most famous one, which is probably the reason for the tax exemption(this part on the tax exemption is my opinion). For evidence, please use the almighty google. http://images.google.com.sg/images?hl=en&q=sathya%20sai%20water%20project&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi.

The pictorial evidence there is sufficient and from diverse sources. I assure you the water is extremely drinkable, as a foreigner who comes from Singapore with world class treated water, that water is drinkable from the tap without any adverse effects to the digestive systems.

Ok, now they mention hospitals in the part on fund raising " Joseph Edamaruku states: " He raises enormous amounts of money from India and around the world. We do not believe claims that it is spent on hospitals and charitable works." ".

Thats the only mention of "hospitals" is in the "allegations" section. Since I'm not in India and unlikely to return anytime soon, i can't exactly contribute evidence. But ok, these hospitals provide free healthcare to pretty much anyone who walks in. I'm quite cynical about ayurveda and homeopathy that they use in the clinics, but thats an Indian standard, so yeah. However, do note that the super-speciality hospital has done quite a LARGE number of heart surgeries and if i recall correctly, brain surguries. For free.

Additionally there are multiple schools that were set up which provide free education, up to university level. And I do remember they were one of the top in India. The university handbook is available at http://www.sssu.edu.in/pdf/Handbook2008.pdf(quite amusingly, because I don't remember many schools leaving that for public download). That should be sufficient evidence. Unless you want to consider that a biased source, then you can use the reference numbers located inside and check with the Indian authorities.

And this section is also a joke.

Ashrams and mandirs The daily program at Sathya Sai Baba's temples usually begins with the chanting of "OM" and a morning prayer (Suprabatham). This is followed by Veda Parayan (chanting of the Vedas), nagarasankirtana (morning devotional songs) and twice a day bhajans and darshan (baba walks around or is wheel-chaired around amongst the gathered devotees) [31] Particularly significant are the darshans during October (the Dasara holidays and November (the month of Sai Baba's birth). [31] During darshan Sathya Sai Baba walks among his followers and may interact with people, accept letters, "materialize" and distribute vibhuti (sacred ash) or call groups or individuals for private interviews. Interviews are chosen solely at the Sai Baba's discretion. Followers consider it a great privilege to get an interview and sometimes a single person, group or family will be invited for a private interview. It is claimed by the Sathya Sai Organization that meeting him has spiritual benefits. [32]

The header is fail, to put it bluntly. That header should be DAILY PROGRAM or LIFE AT AN ASHRAM. Not Ashrams and Mandirs, which are places of worship/meditation/spiritual practice, not actions. There are 3 Ashrams(that i know of), one at puttaparthy(preshanti nilayam, aka the abode of peace), one at brindavan/whitefield and one at kodaikana(of which my spelling fails me). The last one hasn't been used much recently. Its a sort of "hill resort" for which some of the hotter summer months are spent. Brindavan is often used in summer. Puttaparthy for the rest of the time. Evidence for this definitely in the sources provided.

And Ps. Sometimes its a golf-carted around. But I know he still walks, not much though.

This one. Funny. Followers consider him to be a reincarnation of the saint Sai Baba of Shirdi. This claim, however, has been strongly disputed[citation needed].

OK, if its the ONLY MENTION in the article at the Summary at the top, then it should seriously be removed. Because nowhere else in the article does it mention someone else challenging the claim.

I apologise for any feelings my biting style of writing may have hurt. Its the main reason why I don't edit the article directly, because my writing style is completely un-encyclopedic. Just my $1(adjusted for inflation) worth. Will appreciate anyone who does some serious research into this topic. Honestly, I enjoy the bc skeptic http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba/ as far more interesting reading, because at least he quotes the material sources, which I really need to do some digging to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlacKeNinG (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has lot of WP:UNDUE Criticism and still uses questionable sources in a number of places. I started the improvement effort but could not spent enough time as I am busy with other things. If you are serious about improving the article then first familiarise yourself with the earlier discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation and the first and second arbitration discussions. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Dale Beyerstein's ebook is not considered as a reliable source as per wikipedia standards. This was discussed earlier in this talk page. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixing material blanked

A lot of material was blanked in recent edits - some in good faith edits. I'll be fixing these issues - please help verify the content I add for quality of sourcing and let know if you see any issues. White adept (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What content are you exactly planning to add?. Discuss with other editors before you make changes to the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'll certainly do so.

White adept (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, to address BLP concerns I have split the info on the murder of four that happenned in Prashanti Nilayam to another article. We need to add a link to it here in the original article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam

White adept (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction in the biography should be more neutral. I will moving all the criticism under the criticism section. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral is not criticism moved elsewhere! The sole criteria for judging neutrality whether it in encompasses and is in-line-with the mainstream perspective on this person. "Criticism" or "praise" - are both highly subjective, unencyclopaedic criteria for classifying content. You cannot choose to have content you like in the intro and move what you dont like elsewhere. Just focus on the mainstream perspective on this person and cover it there. What you see as criticism, being a person who sees this person as god ( thats what i understand from your earlier post above), other editors may see as just objective, well-sourced content.

White adept (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is biography of a living person. It should be written in a neutral tone. This is not a newspaper. Why do you think you have all those tags in there. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is one of the sections under dispute. It is in need of a fact check, weasel word runover, and it does read as less than neutral. Some of the info really isn't objective, although it is well sourced, the content is written in a way that can be read as POV, so it does need a good readthrough & copy edit, if nothing else. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Onopearls, I have a question for you? The article uses the Basava Premananda and his book in a couple of places. This source has been discussed in detail in the earlier mediation discussion by BOstonMA and was not accepted as a reliable source. Can this be source be removed as its an unreliable source?. Please see the mediation discussion on Basava Premananda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

White_Adept, please refer to Biography writing style. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style

Radiantenergy (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ono, regarding the sexual abuse section - you could look into this version of the article for further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=267229388 White adept (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)