Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately. [1]

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 : Jan 04 - July 05 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive2 : July 05 - Jan 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive3 : Jan 06 - March 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive4 : March 06 - April 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive5 : April 06 - July 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive6 : July 06 - Sept 06 Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/archive7 : Sept 09 - Nov 02

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

Bad intoduction

I do not see what is the use of puting information about the number of Sai Baba's adherents in the introduction. User:Kkrystian

Section For Movies

Just curious where a reference to 6 time Emmy Award Winner Rod Serling's "Mysterious Miracles, Vol. 3 - Man of Miracles: Satya Sai Baba" [2] can be placed in the article? Any suggestions/comments? SSS108 ^talk-email 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could start a specific section for movies and tv ref. shows as both are available. After all, there is a specific section for Nag Campa incense which product line should also include soap and oil which are now being sold. Freelanceresearch 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please edit malicious information.

The information under controversies is poorly written. The allegations are taken from few sources, many whom have very little geographical or cultural connection to Sathya Sai Baba, and probably used to generate publicity and for monetary gain. Please heavily this section. However, the rest is written rather well, although some sections need expanding. I believe this has been recognized as a future, ongoing project.

Emperor_ani

Number of adherents? and a more general complaint

Yeah, Wikipedia tries to take all sides of an issue into account, and cites as many sources as possible, but a little bit of my respect for Wikipedia dies when I see phrases such as the one that describes the number of Sai Baba adherents. It says that he has between "6 million and 100 million" adherents... I don't see how the people who said 6 million could accidentally miss 94 million, or the people who said 100 million could really blow the numbers that far out of proportion. Maybe we could find a more definitive source and agree on a number?

(BTW, the thing about a little bit of me dying and all of that was a joke)

The other thing I wanted to say was that I have no idea who Sai Baba is. I read the first paragraph, and was so overcome by how cumbersome it was, that I gave up and went home. Go to a GOOD article, and see how their introduction is written. What has happened in this article happens in a lot of religion-related articles- the first paragraph is so dense that I have no idea who this dude (no offense) is. This usually happens because of combined editing by NPOV people and supporters/followers of the religious figure in question. A good example of how this paragraph could be structured(IMHO) would be:

Sathya Sai Baba is a ____. He is also the head of ___, and has been involved in _____. He has written/contributed/appeared in _____. He has also raised some controversy because of ______.

If I saw a paragraph written like this, then I might actually have an idea who this guy is, and Wikipedia would have succeeded in its goal to make the world a little smarter.

Thanks,

Arjun Sharma

I agree with Arjun's comments. Regarding the number of followers, my guess is that the difference of 94 million people is due to which people are being counted as followers. It may be that there are 6 million members in his organization or on his mailing lists, and there are 100 million people who are followers in the sense that they generally agree with some or all of his teachings without belonging to his organization. My point is that there may not be a single correct number, so the appropriate way to deal with it is to put the different ways of counting followers in a footnote. HeBhagawan 15:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers of followers between 6-100 million, I see no solution for it because that is what the sources say. If you ask me, one million at maximum would be closer to the truth. And I agree with HeBhagawan that the answer to the question who is to be counted as a follower is not clear and that this one of causes of the widely divergent numbers. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the a lot of information is cramped into a few sentences which may be wrong, but the other side of the coin is that this is an encyclopedia in which we try to convey as much relevant information as possible. I noticed that other encyclopedias are also dense with information. Andries 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC) amended 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the number of adherents is generally agreed to be around 30 million, according to most of the articles cited. There is a single reference to 6 million, which came from Nagel's article. Needless to say, Andries wants that figure in there. If we go on what most of the articles say, the number is given as between 30-50 million. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Article's lead

The article's lead is way too verbose. As per WP:LEAD (my highlight):

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.

Suggestions on how to make this lead compliant with the Manual of Style, are welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is four paragraphs long which strikes me as in accordance with the guideline. Andries 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an agreement and discussion before Andries removes a large section from the lead (which happens to be material that he, as an opponent of Sathya Sai Baba, would want removed). SSS108 ^talk-email 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith, shall we? The lead is too verbose and too detailed. It needs to be a concise summary of the article itself. Either you or Andries should be able to do it. Give it a go, and if it does not work, other editors will surely let you know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, the lead section has been a source of heated debate for a long time between Andries and I. In my opinion, the last 2 paragraphs primarily need to be worked on. Sathya Sai Baba's humanitarian works are a significant factor in his life and mission and should be mentioned in the lead section. Should I create a sandbox so consensus can be reached? SSS108 ^talk-email 02:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox: User:SSS108/Introductory_Paragraph_Sandbox SSS108 ^talk-email 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, can you please explain why you chose to violate WP:Lead by reverting back to a lead section that contains five paragraphs instead of four? This was one of the complaints very clearly voiced by Jossi. I did not omit charity works in the lead section, in contrast to what your above comments suggested. Andries 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, the lead had 5 paragraphs for well over a year and you never complained about it until now. Therefore, you can wait a week or so until there is consensus obtained about how to reduce the lead article to 4 paragraphs. There is a sandbox for this very purpose. Use it. Simple. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I am still waiting for one good argument why you think that your conscious revert to a version that violates of WP:Lead in spite of complaints by Jossi is okay. The important question is not so much whether somebody followed the right procedure but whether an edit makes the article better. The answer to the latter question is that my edit made it better while yours made it worse. Andries 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead is still way too verbose, in any case (current version and SS108 sandbox version). Aspects of his birth can me all moved to the "History and origins", beliefs can be summarized in one short sentence. Same applies to service projects, organizations and criticism. Basically, a short summary of each one of the main sections in the article is what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose following the flawed structure of this article in the lead so I oppose summarizing the main sections of the article in the lead. Andries 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, forget about the lead for now, and focus on fixing the article first. When the article is in good shape, you can then proceed to develop a lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the lead has had 5 paragraphs for well over a year and Andries never expressed concern about it violating any policy. Now, out of the blue, he is acting as if the situation is a life or death issue. Either you obtain consensus about the lead Andries or leave it as is and let other editors make the calls. You are removing information that is very much a part of Sathya Sai Baba's life without discussion or obtaining consensus. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not out of the blue. I noticed that Jossi's complaint were justified. I am still waiting for your answer to the question that I asked months ago why you very selectively copy just one of the responses of the devotees to the allegations i.e. "Anti-Hindu"? Why not summarize all the responses by saying that SSB said that people are bribed and that devotees either deny the allegations or assert that SSB must have a good reason for what he does. Andries 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I am not sure what you are talking about. Please provide difs. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you were the one who added the "Anti-Hindu" part in the lead. Jossie said that the lead needs to be decreased in size, not increased. It appears you are intent on increasing the lead's length rather than decreasing it. The point you want to make can be made under the relevant section in the body. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have objected many times against your insistence of only mentioning the "Anti-Hindu" response of followers in the lead section. Why is the "Anti-Hindu" response more important than other responses and more important than SSB's response? You did not give an answer. You only reverted. Andries 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro is far too verbose. You want something short and eye-catching. Don't make us read 65 sentences to figure out what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, once again, I did not include that section. You did. Again, if you don't like it, reword it and include it in the relevant section in the body. You are attempting to make some sort of argument in the section that only you understand. The intro is a summary, not a soap-box for your arguments.

Wjhonson, you edits are reverted because you messed up the article by including an inappropriate section. Please see my sandbox and work on your edits there. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I came in in the middle of Wjhonson's edits. I will wait to see the final result. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always believed an article's intro should be short and to the point. You should be able to get the message in one breath. Now the article has a brief intro to who he is, a picture a table of contents. People don't have to read all sorts of verbage just to understand what the article is about. Wjhonson 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Wjhonson, I think your edits do provide a very viable solution to a complex issue, however, I seriously doubt it will be accepted because Wikipedia does allow for 4 paragraphs to be added in the introduction. If others do not object, neither will I. Thanks SSS108 ^talk-email 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com References Removed

The Salon.com article by Michelle Goldberg has been removed for several key reasons:

• First: Goldberg's article is exclusively an internet article that has never been published in hardcopy form by reputable or reliable media.
• Secondly: David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [3].

Therefore, Salon.com, as a tabloid and exclusive internet reference, is not a reliable source as per WP:RS SSS108 ^talk-email 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tabloid does not mean intrinsically unreliable. Salon is often regarded as a reliable source. JoshuaZ 05:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what if a source is not on paper? I cannot find that WP:RS dismisses internet only publication. Andries 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, by who? Wikipedia states: "We are not tabloid journalists, we are an encyclopedia." You cannot use a self-professed tabloid as a reliable reference. You will have to rely on reputable and reliable media. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, the question whether Salon.com was a reliable source was extensively discussed in mediation between you and me and you agreed that it was a reliable source. In addition, salon.com is generally regarded as a reliable source in various articles in Wikipedia. As such your attempts to remove salon.com have no merit and are disruptive. Andries 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, see tabloid. I think that the lack of common sense when interpreting source can also be found on SSS108's website regardig SSB. 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know then what I know now. Therefore, my opinion has changed with this new information. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you file a new complaint to the arbcom. If you will not do it then I will do it. Andries 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. And we must follow the steps in dispute resolution first. You know the procedure. It's RFC first. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the next step after mediation is arbcom. We do not have to go back to RFC Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been looking over this article as a mainly uninvolved but interested admin, I a) don't think this is ripe for any for even an RfC yet but b) if it does require more issues it should go straight to ArbCom. There's no point going through the long drawn out process when the ArbCom has already looked at this issue once. JoshuaZ 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, the question whether salon.com is suitable as a source was discussed extensively in mediation. We (SSS108 and Andries) then agreed that it was fine. The question whether it is suitable as source was not discussed in the arbcom case regarding Sathya Sai Baba. According to Wikipedia:dispute resolution the next step after mediation is arbcom. Why do you then suggest to file an RFC is something I cannot understand. Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They have not made any ruling about this particular reference, JoshuaZ. So what do you suggest? SSS108 ^talk-email 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, when Andries had grievances about the article, he filed a request for clarification with ArbCom that was ignored. The request was dropped as "stagnant" finally. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then file an RfC. However, to be blunt, I find it hard to believe that any of the editors here intend to pay much attention to it. JoshuaZ 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Filing an RFC for this case is not in correspondence with the procedure as described in Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 09:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, then is it fair to say that you agree that removing this reference is within Wikipedia policy? Thanks SSS108 ^talk-email 08:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Under what logic? JoshuaZ 08:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is a borderline source. As a tabloid,it cannot be considered a reliable source. But if their reporting has been picked up by mainstream media, and the same stories found resonance in other media, it may be OK to cite from them. If this is the only source for a highly controversial piece of information, editors should exercise caution when using it, or avoid using it, in particular on BLPs. If they information was accurate, it would most probably have showed up on other media. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What proof is offered that Salon.com is an apparently unreliable-tabloid ? Or can you point to the policy that says all tabloids are unreliable. I would note some of the most read newspapers are in tabloid format. Wjhonson 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I provided the link earlier. The founder of Salon. com (David Talbot) himself called Salon a "progressive, smart tabloid" [4]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that Salon.co is unreliable. I am just saying that editors should excercise caution when using a tabloid in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jossi, salon.com is widely regarded as a reliable source throughout Wikipedia. Andries 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the very disturbing an hidden bias used by Goldberg in the article. She collaborated with critics and wrote the article with the sole purpose of bringing "much attention to your struggle". Any Google search for "Michelle Goldberg bias" will reveal the relevant results. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please cite references to support your claims that salon.com is used as reliable source on Wikipedia for Biographies Of Living People? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is for example used as a reference in the article Osama bin Laden. Check here for more Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com References Been Re-Inserted when I looked. I don't understand what is going on here, or what principle is at stake. There will never be an article on this man and his movement that is acceptably WP:RS for inclusion. All the encyclopedia can do is summarise his claims and provide references (with a few minimal details) of his critics. The Salon.com article may or may not be reliable, but none of us is really competent to decide. The likelihood is that some reference to it should be included. PalestineRemembered 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian Article

Andries, please take your edits one at a time. When you make such confusing edits, I can't sift through them all. So please make your edits about The Guardian first, then move on to other edits. I have information to add from The Guardian article even though Anti-Sai Activists are currently boasting on the internet how they were the one's responsible for it and predicted the article's publication 6 months ago. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, You should restore good contents during or just after you give a revert. Andries 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, let us work on The Guardian article (which I plan to combine with the DNA article since The Guardian couldn't even cite the State Dept. warning correctly). SSS108 ^talk-email 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not editwar

Edit wars accomplish nothing. If there are disputes about content, place an RfC. Note that the ArbCom does not get involved in content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Filing an RFC for this case is not in corresponce with wikipedia:dispute resolution, because this case has already undergone mediation. The next step after mediation is arbcom where I will thus file this dispute. Until arbcom has given its verdict I intend to re-insert the salon.com as a source. Andries 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed a request for arbitration here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_request_nr._2 Andries 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Andries. ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

May be you a right, but I will re-insert the references to salon.con until there is a clear majority in the Wikipedia community that says that salon.com is an unreliable source. This is not the case at the moment. There is a clear majority that says that salon.com is fine as source: many articles use salon.com as a source incl. living people. Check e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com Andries 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, you have yet to make your case that the salon.com article is admissible using Wikipedia policies. I have made my case and all you can do is say it is reputable without justification. Explain why an internet resource that never been published by multiple, reliable, reputable media sources is a reliable reference? Since salon.com is a admitted tabloid, and the article you are citing is very talboid-like, you need to justify your edits. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have yourself argued that and why salon.com is permissible as a source. Salon.com is itself a reputable source, so it is irrelevant if and where salon.com is cited. Andries 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I never argued that salon.com was permissable as a source. When it comes to a BLP, critical and potentially libelous internet references (that have never been published by multiple, reliable media sources) do not qualify as reliable sources. Show me the Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. I am not going to be repeating myself and going in circles with you. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please point to me where WP:RS or other relevant policies say that being published on the internet makes something less reliable? There are all sorts of reliable sources with only a web version. JoshuaZ 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, you either have a bad memory, or you are a sloppy writer, or you are liar when you write that you "never argued that salon.com was permissable as a source.". Here SSS108 wrote that salon.com was fine as a source during mediation User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Salon.com_as_a_Source. Andries 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC) amended 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, please give me examples of "reliable sources" (relating to WP:BLP) that contain critical, negative and potentially libelous content that have been exclusively published by one source alone on the internet. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A) Not relevant all that matters is that there are reliable sources which are just webbased. My point was that that claim is not justified. But if you did want examples of that otherwise - the Panda's Thumb has been treated as a reliable source for negative information about intelligent design proponents (see for example the article William Dembski). JoshuaZ 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, and how does the article you cited deal with critical, negative and potentially libelous information as relating to WP:BLP? The example you cited is an essay. Not a BLP. The standard used is entirely different when it comes to a BLP. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You are talking about the site and not the book by Gould "The Panda's Thumb" (which I am familiar with). Those links are not permissible by Wikipedia because panda.org is a blog. Someone violated Wikipedia's policy by including those links. See RS Section SSS108 ^talk-email 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. Discussions on WP:RS and elsewhere have agreed that PT constitutes a reliable source since it doesn't suffer from the problems that would normally make a blog unreliable. First, everything on PT is extensively vetted by the various contributors. Second, the writers of PT are known, well established scientists. So it isn't treated as a blog. The bottom line is that by neither precedent nor logic is a websource inherently unreliable and material which is only on a website can be cited even when it is negative and potentially libelous. JoshuaZ 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries submitted a request for clarification so I will leave the decision upto ArbCom. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom does not rule on reliable sources. Editors do. You are looking at two editors who have no history on this article at all (myself and JoshuaZ) telling you that you are 100% wrong regarding the reliability of salon.com. JBKramer 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man argument. The issue we are discussing is not the reliability of Salom.com, in general as a source. That website may be a reliable source in some instances, but not in others. If there is material that is highly controversial that is only available in Salon.com, that is very suspect and should be treated with caution in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree wholly. We are completly immune from any legal repercussion using Salon as a source. They are reliable. Every uninvolved editor who has reviewed this is in full agreement. JBKramer 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com

Salon.com is undeinably and inarguably a reliable source. Arguing otherwise borders on evidencing bad faith. JBKramer 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is true JBKramer, then other reliable media sources should have made reference to the same material published on Salon.com (which they generally do). However, this particular article is only available on Salon.com as an internet resource and contains potentially libelous information against SSB. Therefore, it's reliablility is suspect because no other reliable media has made reference to it. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is regularly referenced in other print media. That other print media did not pick up on this story in no way makes it a non-reliable source. JBKramer 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines, both online and on paper. Andries 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be centralized here talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please support your comments that Salon.com publishes a magazine in paper. Where did you get this information from? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that salon.com is published on paper. Andries 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what did you mean to say? SSS108 ^talk-email 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines including both paper and internet magazines. Andries 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That is only your opinion, Andries. My opinion, is that Salon.com is a tabloid and when I read it I read it with trhat in mind. Their articles read more as op-eds, or advocacy journalism, and I would be very surprised if they have the editorial control that mainstream newspapers have. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They do. See Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Let us leave a message at all articles in which salon.com is used as a reference (or linked to in the external link section) and let us have a centralized discussion here. Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The question that no one is addressing here is: "Is Salon.com a reliable source for material that has not been published anywhere else?" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I had addresse that question and I think the answer is yes. Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is: Are ALL of Salon.com articles to be considered reliable despite the fact that they refer to themselves as an online tabloid? It is clear that when it comes to critical, negative and potentially libelous information, WP:BLP and WP:RS lay out specific guidelines to determine the reliability of an article. I think it is abundantly clear that this Salon.com article does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements because: 1) The online article in question has never been referenced by other reputable media; 2) It was written like (and sounds like) a tabloid article and 3) It contains negative, cricital and potentially libelous information (which would require multiple sources to establish its reliability). Just because Salon.com may generally be considered reliable does not make ALL their tabloid articles reliable. This article, in my opinion, falls into the category of unreliable articles. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest strongly that you not remove references to the Salon.com article again without first seeking consensus on this talk page. JBKramer 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

To involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is little to discuss left. Andries 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is not an excuse to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what should we do? Andries 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Since many of us feel that the salon.com article was very biased and poorly researched, there are two options. Either do not include it at all, or if you do, anti-Sais must allow rebuttal on contentious points. Simple solution. Unfortunately, there a many articles that have been written by so-called mainstream outlets that are really flubbing it. Why this is happening I do not know but it does very much have the appearance of a calculated and biased smear campaign which purposely leaves out very important DOCUMENTED facts. Regardless of whether this is due to bad journalism or not, it needs to be addressed. Freelanceresearch 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

" Prime Minister Vajpayee's Statement:

"We are deeply pained and anguished by the wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We would normally expect that responsible media would ascertain the true facts before printing such calumny - especially when the person is revered globally as an embodiment of love and selfless service to humanity. Since this professional ethic has not been observed by a section of the media, we have elected to go public with this signed statement." Freelanceresearch 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is already in the article. Andries 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article to the talk page

I moved this section (that was originall the lead section) from the article to the talk page, because I think that it made the article worse for the average reader. Please try to add this properly referenced information to the article if it is not yet there. Andries 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

redistributed everything below to appropriate sub-section

The most vehement criticisms since the year 2000 are the allegations made by former devotees of inappropriate sexual relations with young men and boys. According to India Today magazine (dated December 2000) no complaints have been filed against the Guru, by any alleged victim, in India. It was also reported, in this same India Today magazine, that the coterie that surrounds Baba dismissed the allegations by denouncing them as "Anti-Hindu" attacks made by foreigners . According to Mick Brown, due to the public disclosure of allegations, there was a rash of defections from Western countries and Sweden. In face of the allegations, the Sathya Sai Central Trust is still the largest recipient of foreign donations (as recently as 2001) and Bill Aitken and Michelle Goldberg both expressed the opinion that the allegations have not seemed to impact the Guru's following.

Inclusion of the legal battles about the name Sai Baba

I will file a request for comment, because I continue to disagree with SSS108. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#Inclusion_Of_Irrelevant_Articles for discussion. Andries 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

List of unresolved disputes

I will make a list of unresolved disputes regarding this article. Please do not assume when there are no reverts or no current discussions anymore that a dispute is resolved. This list is work in progress. Andries 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Inclusion of a legal battle regarding the used of the name Sai Baba

See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#Inclusion_Of_Irrelevant_Articles

In favor of inclusion: Andries

SSS108 wants to exclude this because he states that it is irrelevant.

I am in favor of including this, but only so long as it is in the "controversies" section. HeBhagawan 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

HeBhagawan, have you read the article in question? It is about Sathya Sai Baba's followers. Not about Sathya Sai Baba himself. It is also apparent that Andries has a poor grasp on what the article actually states. English is a secondary language for Andries and he is drawing all sorts of conclusions not supported by the article itself. If this article was about followers, then it could be included. It isn't. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2. List of books by Sathya Sai Baba

In favor of listing: Andries

Opppose listing but prefers linking to the list: SSS108

Oppose listing; better to link to the list. HeBhagawan 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this proposal is about. Please give examples. Ekantik 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of books is something like 30-40 titles long. Also, Andries was the only person supporting the inclusion of such a long list. No one else supported it. He left off the names of several other people who opposed it. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Structure: making one section of the miracles and its controversy

See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#How_to_proceed_.282.29.3F

Initially proposed by Andries and later independently proposed by Pjacobi

• Support: Andries, Pjacobi
• Oppose: ?
• Keep the section on miracles separate from the section on controversies. In the "miracles" section, describe the miracles according to what followers of Sai Baba believe. In the controversies section, give the viewpoint of the people who disbelieve. HeBhagawan 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Structure: making one section of the controversy and responses by followers

Immediately proposed by Andries when Thaumaturgic introduced this subsection, but opposed by SSS108 which led to an edit war See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive7#How_to_proceed_.282.29.3F

• Support: Pjacobi, Andries
• Oppose:

There was originally a separate page for the controversy and allegations and Andries was the one who vehemently refused to summarize the allegations and controversy on the main page and use the separate page for the controversy. Now, however, Andries wants a separate page for the controversy. One can only wonder why? I would not agree to this unless the controversy is summarized in a paragraph or so on the main page. I will not agree to what Andries originally had, which was 2 pages dedicated to the controversy, i.e., making the full case for each on both the main page and a separate controversy page. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an official template. I would like to see Pjacobi sign his own agreements instead of having Andries put his name here. And the people who opposed the long list of books included several other editors Andries. Nice to see how you selectively choose names to mislead others with agreements/disagreements or whatever you are trying to accomplish here. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the section on miracles separate from the section on controversies. In the "miracles" section, describe the miracles according to what followers of Sai Baba believe. In the controversies section, give the viewpoint of the people who disbelieve. HeBhagawan 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of cronyism

Reading abit about the Salon controversy, it appears to be about the bit where it is alleged he has supporters in high places in India who prevent anything being done about him. There appears to be a suggestion this is unique to Salon. However I distinctly remember hearing the same allegations in a documentary a few years back (don't know when, probably sometime 2002 or later but not after BJP lost/Manmohan Singh became PM). I don't know who made this documentary or whether it would be considered a reliable source but it seems to me there is at least one other source for these allegations Nil Einne 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nil Einne, not only are the allegations of "cronyism" between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists entirely true, it is also true that Andries (former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Contact And Supervisor" for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet) fully conceded that the BBC was sympathetic with and supported an Anti-Sai agenda. Many critics boasted about participating and being prime players behind that documentary. As a matter of fact, you will notice that Andries recently added the reference to The Guardian article by Paul Lewis. Needless to say, Anti-Sai activists are currently boasting (on the internet) about being behind this article as well (claiming prior knowledge going back 6 months). Although none of these findings are allowed on Wikipedia (due to the policy on no original research), the Anti-Sai agenda behind all this media is well known as they boast on their achievements whenever they get a chance. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com

The inclusion of Salon.com has not been resolved by ArbCom, but an opinion was given by Fred Bauder about this issue and he said that Salon.com could be mentioned without mentioning specifics. Reference to Salon.com is in the aricle, but the specifics were removed in accordance with the opinion expressed by Fred Bauder. What further consensus needs to be obtained? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not REMOTELY what he said. JBKramer 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically "I would not use material regarding any particular allegation." JBKramer 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right. That is why that material was removed. Reference to Salon.com IS included in the article as per his advice [5]. Are you aware of this fact or are you blindly reverting? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 removal of information sourced to salon.co, i.e. kundalini awakening defense is not in contradiction to Fred Bauder's opinion on the matter who wrote "I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony." By the way the Kundalini defense by devotees can be verified in seconds on the internet, so I do not understand why the sourcing to salon.com is controversial. I had such bizarre rationalizations for some time myself too. Andries 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is inclued: "A number of allegations were published in an article by the liberal, on-line webzine Salon.com." According to Fred Bauder, the citation of Ram Das can be just as false as the citations to allegations. Neither can be used. Maybe you should seek clarification again. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How can this be reasonably false? It can be verified in seconds with google. Andries 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? That's almost precisely what Fred suggested it say. What's the issue? JoshuaZ 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, It is also about Ram Das Awle's kundalini defense sourced to salon.com that SSS108 repeatedly removes. You can find it with google. ( I do not whether I am allowed to link to it here). Andries 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification to remove the sentence that reads "According to an article in salon.com in the year 2001, a great part of the Findings contains testimonies of sexual harassment and sexual abuse." There is no justification to remove the stentence that reads "According to the journalist Michelle Goldberg of salon.com the fact that the Baba has high ranking Indian politicians as his supporters and the charity works done by the various organizations associated with the Baba help to explain why he has not been brought into a court of law in India. The Indian consulate website states that crime victims must file charges with the police." These are not allegations of a specific individual sourced only to Salon. Honestly, it is transparently obvious that this is bad faith edit warring. I, however, could care less about this article, and as such, I disengage. May you all get exactly what is coming to you. JBKramer 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to involve more detail than Fred advocated. JoshuaZ 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon is a good source for the fact that there are a number of allegations of sexual misconduct. Fred Bauder 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)