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)

references

)

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 [1] and my blog at [2] -- 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)

RFC - Should excessive quoting be paraphrased and trimmed?

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 [3] and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) [4], 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)

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. [5]
• A highly summarized version of the March 4th page[6]

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)

I do believe we should remove the sources because:

• While they did decide that the book may or may not be refutable, it was merely a compilation of sources (e.g. news clippings, works by other authors, etc.)
• The clippings within the book may or may not be reliable sources.
• No one else has the book, so we can't exactly go through it, and prove the reliability of said sources.

If we can find the book, decide if the source is reliable or not, and, should we decide the source is reliable, fact check the information cited from the book in the article, we can return the information. If not, it stands as OR. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:47, 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)

The above version has major section from "The Findings" written by the Baileys. This was dismissed as another unreliable source in the mediation discussion by BostonMA. That's the reason other editors removed this section and rewrote the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

White_Adept, Why are you adding back the same contents which were removed by other users as part of improving the article and fixing the WP:BLP rules. The article underwent 2 arbitrations mainly due to editwarring among editors and usage of unreliable sources. The arbitrators warned ediotors to add positive material to the article. You are making this article look like a charge sheet on Sathya Sai Baba adding more and more WP:Undue criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. The article is clearly out of balance with 90% criticism on Sathya Sai Baba Radiantenergy (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We are striving to reach a NPOV, Radiantenergy. We cannot just leave out all information that casts Sai Baba in a negative connotation, especially under the criticism section, which is well sourced and well documented. I believe that the new section should be read over by a third party, and checked for POV. thanks, Ono (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that the article has 90% criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. The article only focusses on criticism and protraying Sathya Sai Baba as a criminal. Though he was never proved to be guilty in any court of law. All the positive content which were in the previous template has been removed by White_adept. The previous template has a section called teachings, organisation and response to criticism. The criticism section was well balanced. Another problem with this article is when ever a content added from unreliable source is pointed out the source name has been changed to BBC. How can the source be changed blindly like that. I will look in to the history and give you such examples in several places.Radiantenergy (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that he removed all of the positive information about Sai Baba. However, when you google "Sathya Sai Baba" 3 of the top five hits are concerning the acts of which he has been accused. Thus, the criticism section, which covers several respectable sources (such as the BBC) is justifiably longer than some of the other sections. I agree that it may need to be cut, but I do not believe that the information added is in any way too negative toward Sai Baba (as it isnt original research, but information published in hundreds of different places, all saying the same thing.) Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, When you google there are number of websites which talks about these allegations. Many of them are attack websites on Sai Baba. By the way there also other websites which refutes these allegations and questions their sources such as http://www.saisathyasai.com. The point is some where there needs to be a balance in the article between criticism and positive aspects from his life.

Sathya Sai Baba has undertaken several service projects building 2 major hospitals for the poor etc. Here ia an article which was published in Times Of India. http://www.saibabalinks.org/media/saibabahospitalarefugetomillions.htm. Also here is another service project published in another reputed Newspaper. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/features/saibaba/stories/2005112300260200.htm.

I think the article should be written more balanced and with less criticism. 90% Wp:Undue criticism is too much in a biography of a living person. I would appreciate a third party review on this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcomed to add your information as well. However, as the majority of the available information (that we can currently find from the internet) mentions in some shape, form, or fashion something negative about Sai Baba, we cannot just take the information out, and, because there is so much information out there, there is really not undue weight given to the one section (90% is a gross overestimate, it is more like 30% of a overly long article.) The controversy section is slightly longer than probably needed (although it could be argued that it completely & accurately covers a broad and controversial topic.) Just because you disagree with having a section about controversies surrounding Sai Baba (and you cannot deny that Sathya Sai Baba is one of the most controversial figures in recent Indian history), doesn't mean that it should be removed. Wikipedia is not censored, and as such, all the nessecary topics of a person should be covered (see Michael Jackson, who is a controversial figure, and who has all of his controversial information added to his article.) Thanks, Ono (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Village Service

I came across this video when browsing through google pages. I would like to share this with everyone. Here's an interesting video from google on the village services. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-261491697663272013. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns have resulted in a lot material having to be either cut short or removed. I suggest we model these pages after the Michael Jackson article and create a separate branch ( like 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson ), say, Reports of homosexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba - please share your perspective on this. White adept (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

White_Adept, in 2006 User:Andries had a separate sub-section / branch like the one you are referring to. During the mediation by BostonMA User:Andries was asked to delete this subsection / branch. I have to search the mediation discussion for the reasons why the subsection / branch was deleted. I will let you know. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

1) Any Basava Premananda or references and contents sourced to the Indian skeptic journal will be removed as per the earlier mediation discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source.

2) Reference and contents sourced to Dale Beyerstein and his ebook another unreliable source will also be removed. This unreliable source was pointed out by User:Andries in this talk page earlier. If you disagree please feel free to get it clarified at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Dale Beyerstein cannot be used as a source

• Dale Beyerstein and his ebooks is unreliable and is original research as per wikipedia standards. It was never verified and published in reliable publication.
• Its an ebook. There are several ebooks available. We cannot use them all in wikipedia unless its verified for accuracy. This ebook was neither fact-checked nor its contents verified for accuracy by a third party. It was never published by any reputed agency. That's the reason it cannot be used in this article as a reliable source. Here's link to his ebook. http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba

Comments from User:Andries who also think this is an unreliable source:

• 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).

Radiantenergy (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What?! You give a talk page statement from a user who has been banned from editing these pages? And you use a user banned from editing the article as an authority to dictate sources here? Please! You'll need more than that to remove the source!

White adept (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dale Beyerstein ebook was never verified nor was it ever published by any reputable third party publication.

Here are the questions for verifying a source taken from the mediation discussion?

• Does it have a large or very small readership?:

Its an ebook. Very small readership. Its not like a newspaper which has a large section of viewers.

• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?

This ebook is personal research work of Dale Beyerstein. And is not a journal with large / permanent staff.

• Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

Nope. It did not have any peer reviews. It is basically Dale Beyerstein personal views and it can be considered as Original research.

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

This ebook was never published by any third party reliable source. Its facts were never verified or checked.

As it stands now it is an unreliable source and unverified original document. . Its references should be removed from the article.

• Regarding User:Andries its surprising that all along you have been consulting him in a number of topics in this same talk page. Suddenly you realised he is a banned user?. By the way the arbitrators who banned him had allowed User:Andries to participate in Sathya Sai Baba talk page and the motion was changed as of April 12th 2008. It says as follows "Thus, Andries is now permitted to edit the talkpages of these articles, but not the articles themselves. In doing so, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons." .Passed by motion of the Committee 7 to 0 and original remedy amended, 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC). User:Andries was the original editor of this article and he knows more information about these sources than any of the new editors involved now. That's the reason I think he can be consulted and his views must be given some weightage too. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How ridiculous can you get! Dale Beyestein a qualified academic and his study was published by The BC Skeptics. It is one of the best, most comprehensive and few academic sources in the article - especially in relation to the purported miracles. It is as relevant - if not far more - as the other suorces use din teh article including Haraldsson,Mick Brown, etc. There is no rationale to blank it. The results of the study are also in-line with what other reputable sources tell us on the topic. And, I repeat - wikipedia doesnot support such censorship - you personally may not like it because you still like to think of this fraud as your "god" - but that is not sufficient reason to go around blanking material from an encyclopedia. White adept (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

White adept, I will ask again that you at least try to assume good faith here. Ad hominem attacks are against policy, and accusing another editor of censorship is only going to hurt your case. At any rate, I suggest that you seek advice from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to settle the matter and to prevent any potential future disagreements from arising in regards to the reliability of the source. ←Spidern→ 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We need to take a step back, and seek help from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Until they have issued their decision, we should leave the information that is sourced by beyerstein. (And to Radiantenergy, if you believe that beyerstein's information should be removed, remove the info directly sourced by him. this [7] edit shows that when you removed said information, you also significantly cut down or completely removed information from other sources, like Mick Brown.) As i said before, we cannot remove information because it casts Sai Baba in a negative manner. Remember that Wikipedia isn't censored. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I replied harshly. But this was the third time this thing was being blanked and together with it was blanked other material too - and that came on top of the incessant vandalism we have been facing in the past two months. If it happened a couple of timed it would have been easy for me to "assume good faith" in these edits - but when material is blanked repeatedly with misleading edit summaries - it is not that easy to keep assuming'good faith'. Anyway I apologize for not losing my calm in that edit.

White adept (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Section: Response to Criticism

I will be adding this section - Response to Criticism. This was in the Jan 2009 version but was removed. Several government officials have reponded and given thier take on these allegations. I think this is an important section related to this article. The official Sathya Sai Organisation website also has posted responses to these allegations and this also will be included in this section. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent vandalism

I believe that, with the recent bouts of vandalism, it is time to request semi protection for this page. If the admin agree, we will be able to stop a large portion of the vandalism that regularly hits this page. Any comments/suggestions about a solution other than protecting the page? Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone got there before me. Hopefully, they will respond quickly. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected until April 20th. We should attemtpt to reach a consensus over the multiple problems that this page appears to have between now and then. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)