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 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?

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]"

references

)

Objection to the use of devotee material and discourses for biography

I object to the use of discourses by SSB and books by devotees for the biography. They are unreliable sources. Three scholars have written that it is impossible to write a biography because reliable data is not available i.e. Babb, Norris W. Palmer and Poggendorf-Kakar because virtually all sources are derived from the unreliable hagiographic Kasturi. And why was the attempt of verification by Schulman removed of the cobra incident? This is one of the very few sources that is not derived from the unreliable Kasturi. This article has seriously detoriated and has not been handled at all according to the arbcom decisions of reliable sourcing. Andries (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was the statement by Babb removed about the lack of reliability of Kasturi's writing removed? Please note that Babb was a recommended source in the latest arbcom case regarding this article. So please restore it quickly. Andries (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Content

Thought For the Day 5th December 2009

There is in everyone a spark of Truth; no one can live without that spark. There is in everyone a flame of Love; life becomes a dark void without it. That spark, that flame is God, for He is the source of all Truth and all Love. Man seeks the Truth; he seeks to know the reality because his very nature is derived from God who is Truth. He seeks Love, to give it and share it, for his nature is God and God is Love.

- BABA

-- 88.75.203.177 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Love is My Form, again!

In the Biography section, I have restored the following reference to this neglected RS work on the early years of Sathya Sai Baba which someone has unhelpfully deleted at some time in the past few months. I do not propose to waste further time on this, but I do hope open-minded Wikipedians will prevent further similar acts of "vandalism by stealth" (by one of the usual suspects) in this controversial article.

"A different chronology of Sathyanarayana's schooling is offered, with school register photostats, in Love is My Form. Volume 1, edited by R. Padmanaban, Sathya Sai Baba's former photographer, and published in October 2000 by Sai Towers Publishing of Bangalore and Puttaparthi (ISBN 81-86822-77-1).The photostats of school register pages, with dates, are shown on pages 40-41, 68-69 and 131-132, and a 2-page summary of data about the 4 schools attended is given on pages 128-129. Previous references to this neglected RS have been surreptitiously removed from this article in the past few months. This RS should be treated with more respect." Ombudswiki (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Complying with requests for clean-up

I see why those notices were posted. I would like to go in boldly and reduce this article by about 60%, leaving a much more neutral and Wikipedic remainder. Does anyone seriously object? Rumiton (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. Smartse (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a reduction is good but it should be done carefully and not by just one person, of course anyone can do anything they want but I think the most productive way would be a collaboration. I can help.Sbs108 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's wait a few days to see if there's anyone else. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome more NPOV which means less reliance on devotee sources, Kasturi, or sources derived from thoses sources that have been assessed as hagiographic and unreliable by three different scholars (Babb, Palmer and Poggendorf-Kakar). I also think that neutrality means that the article should better reflect the very critical attitude of many mainstream sources, like the BBC and the Times. (Neutrality in Wikipedia means following what reputable sources have stated.) Andries (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should not follow a very critical attitude because these allegations have not been proven, backed up or followed up on by these sources nor has there been any cases against Sai Baba. Just because these allegations were mentioned in reputable sources can't negate the entire life of Sai Baba and the good he is done. Sai Baba is not known for these allegations, these are not the origin of his fame. Besides there has been absolutely no follow up by these sources accept the one time articles (Documentary) that presented these "allegations" nor has there been any new allegations nor any cases. There is already enough criticism in the article given the BLP standards. I don't agree with any pro or anti statements. Tell the life like it is without distortion and sensationalism. A critical view is well into the minority no matter how you want to slice it. In other words its basically a footnote in the article. To present more of a "critical" view than is already there is a complete distortion of reality.Sbs108 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Andries, nice to meet you again. I agree that the sources that prevail here seem to be devotional. But as we have seen elsewhere, insisting on a "balance" of pro and anti statements creates a schizoid article that no one is happy with, least of all the reader who goes to Wikipedia for information. I think it is possible for the encyclopedia to speak with a balanced voice that acknowledges all points of view but promotes none of them. Are you happy to cooperate in this endeavour? Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also believe a reduction is a good start. However, as you can see from the archived discussions, any widespread removal of information without discussion first causes a good bit of controversy and talk page arguments. Perhaps singling out the worst sections, and discussing those here would be a better step than up and removing 60% of a very, very long article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

the article is long but what is to be cleaned up is important... alot of information can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba movement page...

i think its best to keep most of the biography intact as that is what seems most pertanent to Sathya Sai Baba as a person. anything that anyone does, (ie practises) or or claims around him should be placed or elaborated somewhere else... in that the water projects were started by him as well as the hospitals, i think those should stay as those events/projects were started by him directly...

to "clean up" the article should be more than a slash and burn approach...

J929 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i would suggest getting rid of the political row section as its been over 2 years and nothing has happened since...

J929 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree because it is unrelated to his notability. Andries (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to person/article subject's life seems most in line in keeping with the article's subject... ie. the scorpian sting has no importance is Sai Baba notability but but is major occurance (although not from Sai Baba's own point of view) of an event in Sathya Sai Baba's life, enough to be noted in most books about Sai Baba...
biography and 'Institutions, organizations and projects' should be kept as they are. (no one can argue about events in Sathya Sai Baba's life ie hip surgery or parentage/family lineage) ...the rest can be summarised.
'claims of materialisation' can be removed and replaced with a brief reference to the (relatively) common knowledge of Sai Baba's materialization of vibhutti, statues etc etc ....

Criticism and controversy should be kept to a brief yet well referenced minimum along with responses to Criticism and controversy, as Sai Baba has made little (if any) responses to the mdedia...

the last paragraoh in "Ashrams and mandirs" can be omitted, the rest should stay as the ashrams were built around Sai Baba...

although a point seems to arise... what will keep other editors (now or in the future) from re -inserting information that will be deleted now? alot of the information is relevant and valid. the only factor is that wikipedia says the article is too long...
some one may feel that it is important to discuss that there is no scientific proof that Sai Baba does materialise objects or that no one has proved vibhutti (ash) comes out from devotees photos and will want to elaborate on it...

J929 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)