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.

Another uncorrected mistake due to severe neglect

"Bhagawan Sri Satya Sai BabaSathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram was born to Peddavenkama Raju and Eswaramma in a poor agrarian family in the remote village of Puttaparthi, located in Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh."

Andries (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

His name is Sathyanaryana, NOT Sathya Narayana. He was named Sathyanarayana by his mother in honour of the puja she completed on the day of his birth. Cite: Love is My Form, Chapter 1, Page 21

Father's name is Pedda Venkama Raju, NOT Peddavenkama Raju. This is on account of the fact that his Grandfather, Kondama Raju had TWO sons named Venkama Raju, and to differentiate, one was called Chinna Venkama Raju, the other Pedda Venkama Raju. Cite:Love is My Form, page 16-17; Love is My Form, Ratnakaram Family Tree, Pages 22-23 Saieditor (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Feel free to edit in with references incl. page numbers. I do not have the book 'Love is My Form Andries (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NEWS: SAI BABA EXPOSED

Please Urgently Watch This Video: http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

White adept (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And? Why to "urgently watch this video"? What it has to do with wikipedia? If you have some problems with Sai Baba, than do it on some other media or authorities. Wikipedia is encyclopedia.

Jonson22 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article is made to sound like a beatup/coverup for a criminal one is hard pressed, by the desire to make the article objective, and obliged( as an editor)to draw urgent attention to material that can help editors gain an objective, neutral perspective on the subject. Further, editors seeing this short 9 minute video can save dozens of hours of meaningless future discussions. Also want to point out that the above link has now been fixed.

White adept (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What crime? Was there any evidence or trial? No? So, how can you be so certain about crime? And you talk about objective and neutral perspective on the subject?

Video gives no evidence.

Devotee or anti-devotee - both are subjected by their own perspective. You look like anti-devotee covered with "neutral pespective". Jonson22 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The video presents a lot of evidence - including objective, beyond doubt exposal of criminal-deceit involved in his tricks. Let each person form his opinion(of whether he is a cheap trickster, a criminal or whatever) after seeing the video. This obviously is not a court of law. But, he and many of his "supporters", and cover-up men will have to face one very soon. What the video presents is just a tip of the iceberg. A formidable body of evidence has been collected by some investigative agencies - including the details of many of his cover-up men.

White adept (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The video gives no evidence. This in encyclopedia and no "enlightening magazin" to convince me that Sai Baba is BAD or GOOD. So what if he has followers or no, so what if they cover-up some things... Do it on some other media, no on article on Wikipedia. Be professional! Be objective. It's so obvious, that you hate Sai Baba. Don't be fanatical. We don't want war here to convince people to "see the truth". This is just article. Jonson22 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The following website exposes the critics smear campaingn: http://www.saisathyasai.com/ . A must read to know the other side of the story - User:Solarpower123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Why was this deleted?

[1] I think this was a well-sourced paragraph clearly related to the notability of SSB. (Sick young man goes to SSB with the hope to get healed by SSB as per SSB's claims but is homosexually abused by SSB. He is so confused and distraught that he commits suicide.) Andries (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the user must have deleted it because of the extremely misleading way it was phrased - which I have found is a characteristic tactic of deceit used by baba's cover-up men of turning the tide against the victim and the baba acusser - through cunning deception. Source is fine - but the content was made to sound like the straight opposite of what the original article said - and it is 100% percent understandable if someone felt it should be deleted. The edit summary was nevertheless a little misleading - but very understandable if the edit was meant to root out deception.

Will fix and restore relevant content from the article you pointed out -Titled: Three die after putting faith in guru[sai baba] - a story about three young men being driven to suicide by the mad beliefs of this cult - two very likely as a result of self-disgust from direct homosexual abuse from the "baba". White adept (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I already explained here [2] Jonson22 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonson22, thanks for your explanation. I strongly disagree with you in the case of the suicide of Mr. Michael Pender. You may be right about the other two cases.

here is an excerpt from the article ‘The truth will prevail...’:a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment by Matthijs van der Meer Published in Spiegelbeeld October issue 2000.

"Or maybe precisely by the grace of an even traumatic experience Baba had guided people towards leading a more normal life. "Then what about the suicide of Michael?" I countered. "Well, after all we all have free will, don’t we?" was the response. "And didn’t he have AIDS too?" I became dumbfounded. But Ralli sustained: "I’ve written it down: this boy was HIV-positive and came back very ill.

Notice this: the only one whom he could ever have spoken to about Michael was Keith, who described him as "so vital". So what was I to make of this? But I wasn’t left in doubt for long. Keith and I were invited to have dinner with his mother, who showed me many pictures of Michael: a handsome white who had had himself snapshot naughtily smiling almost without exception. Sometime afterwards I was to see how for a moment tears of anger sprang into her eyes: "It is such a damned fact that had Sai Baba not been there, Michael would still be alive today." "

Andries (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right about Michael, but only about him complaining of being sexually molested. Probably I wasn't paying attention on each story, because they were in the same article.

But we must be objective as much as possible. And as Sai Baba have a lot of devotee so he have a lot of haters. How much of the truth is coming from both sides?

About sexual abuse: as stated here [3] (in the section sex abuse) we must be transpersonal and professional to write an article with no personal motives. Why write about every reported sexual abuse? Put it down in references for further reading. But I didn't notice in article explanation that no charges have never been filed officially in India and he has never been convicted for sexually abuse. So my question is: why isn't mention that?

This should be a neutral and honest article about living person, not debate about whether he is good or bad.

Well, I hope that article will be in future more neutral. Jonson22 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. it is there: "In an article that was published in the India Today magazine in December 2000, it was stated that no complaints had been filed against Sathya Sai Baba by any alleged victim, in India." Andries (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there have been cases filed - including in the supreme court, for instance by Hari Sampath. Cases have been filed by young Indians alleging abuse - but are quickly covered up through political power-play and the abuse-victims end up at the receiving end of hate-propaganda campaigns from devotees. Also , there are many including Germans who have had to take help from their Embassy to escape after being dogged by the police in Puttapurthi. A substantial portion of villagers, merchants and policemen in the village are henchmen of the baba business because they directly benefit from the godman's popularity. Legal procedure in India would require complaints to be filed directly with the puttapurthi police - no Indian in a sane state of mind would dare even think of that. Further any such case, successfully filed, would come under media attention - the person who filed it cannot escape to another country but will have to live amongst devotees. And, for such a case to reach a resolution in India's legal system can require several years. Other factors include cultural aspects - which make it highly improbable that a homosexual abuse victim would reveal his experience - because he will be looked-down by the society( as a gay-victim) for the rest of his life. Still, I understand, there are many cases that have been filed by Indians.

See how very smoothly the four murders in the baba's own bedroom was covered up without a problem. Even the CBI ( Indian eqv. of the FBI ) couldn't conduct a proper investigation.

A 70 year old like Basava Premanand had 4 attempts at his life when he dared to speak out against this baba - that was despite the fact that he is a renowned "fake-guru buster" in India and also the author of several books and articles.

Sanal Edamaruku states: "The media[in India] is scared, basically. For example when the big scandal about SB’s sexual abuse on people arose. And look at the Indian media. There was only one newspaper from New Delhi which produced the story. People are so afraid, so scared because he is politically powerful and his influence is so real and he can damage if he is criticised. Anybody (who) criticises is eliminated, or attacked or cornered or isolated. Having a press conference on SB’s 70th birthday, the very next day I found that my car parts were removed in the morning so that I could simply have an accident. It could look like a coincidence. Such things happen several times, but we are not afraid. We are not going to be cowed down by that thing. We’re waiting for that time that people come out openly and expose this cheat."

Larsson states that when he dared to speak out: "I was threatened that I would be shot when I should go to Poland. And now one has tried a new tactic, from the Sai movement, and that is to send out messages about me saying I am a convicted pedophile. They have, so to speak, turned around the entire problematic and say that what Sai Baba is guilty of - pedophilia – is what I am guilty of. I and the other guys who have dared to speak out – it is us who are pedophiles. And they have send this announcement out across the globe. And Sai followers believe it."

"Ex-devotees have contacted the FBI, Interpol, the Indian Supreme Court and a host of other agencies, hoping for help in their battle against the guru." - Michelle Goldberg

White adept (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Go work for police. Wikipedia is not police station! Jonson22 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And you, buddy, could, am sure, serve the mafia well! Talk about cover-up strategies and misleading discussion!! I just addressed/clarified the issues you raised. If the subject of discussion is criminal activities of the person what else would be the context of the discussion?

White adept (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

copied from the book gurus in America. "As observers also report, given the strong following Baba has among prominent and national civic leaders in India, it is extremely unlikely that a case against Baba would be heard there or that he wouold be extradited to face charges elsewhere."Andries (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

copied from the book gurus in America. "Many prominent persons in India are devotees of Satya Sai Baba and he is also instrumental to many politicians in securing votes, Baba is accordingly largely left alone by the government and, therefore, relatively free from prosecution for any alleged offense related over the Internet, which has the twin effects of leaving his detractors angry about the lack of due process and his proponents angry about unsubstantiated libel without recourse. "Andries (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Move this section to new article

I propose that this section Controversies and reports of criminal conduct should be moved to new article, because there are so many haters of Sai Baba that article itself looks like "hater page" or "newspaper archive" and not biography. This is BLP and it should be neutral and transpersonal. Some editors when editing have in mind that "it should be shown the truth about this man". Wikipedia is not place to do it that way. Jonson22 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There used to be an article Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba but it was merged with this article. I oppose restoring it without consensus (or large majority of agreement) because this might be construed as a Wikipedia:POV fork. Andries (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

These allegations are central to the notability of the person. 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." National Television in several countries have covered the allegations - these being central to the person's notability and not some fringe allegations we have no choice but to present it to the reader to make the article neutral, informative and objective.

White adept (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

either delete this article ...whoever editing this article are neither polite nor truthful.they are literally brimming with hatred for satya sai baba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But this is not "newspaper arhive" to write down all allegations! It should be just stated like that...

"there were several allegation of sexual abuse but non of the charges have ever been filed officially in India and he has never been convicted for sexually abuse."

...(and put some references) Simple, clear, informative, transpersonal, proffesional and factual!

Because, if there is no officialy conviction then the person stand as inocent as stated in UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in article 11

And I don't care what do you think, because you're not authority of any kind to show us "your truth"

Stop with this non-sense.

And by the way: then write some positive things about this person, not just negative. It's obvious that you're biased. Jonson22 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an archive. Such an archive would run to hundreds if not a few thousand pages. Perhaps a

"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."-The BBC

could be helpful or

"Ex-devotees have contacted the FBI, Interpol, the Indian Supreme Court and a host of other agencies, hoping for help in their battle against the guru."

And this is not "my truth" in anyway!! It is that of thousands of victims, of revelations and investigative reports by The BBC, DTV, CBC, ABC, Times etc.; of Goverments: American, German, British, Swedish and more. Of researchers like Kovoor, Premanand, Sanal, Baileys etc. Of Professors: Priddy, Narasimhaiah, Beyerstein etc. Of those in the legal system like the ex-secretary to the Home Minister of Andhra Pradesh, CBI officials etc.

White adept (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it. This is just an article about some living person and not government agency for convicting people the "truth" about him and making war against him!

Do you understand now? Jonson22 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest - I dont get what you are driving at one wee bit. Just out of curiosity, does this extremely convoluted personal philosophy of yours apply to Osama bin Laden also?

As for me, I will, in no way, consciously support deception or white-washing a criminal that you are advocating above - and it is not anybody "convicting" anything - but its merely objective information -->highly pertinent<-- to issues that are central to the person's notability as carried in Leading International Media being presented to the reader in a balanced, structured and inforamtive manner.

White adept (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What deception? What white-washing a criminal? This is police matter. You're trying to do the police job here on wikipedia. The job of police is to detect criminal act, to pursue criminals, to gather evidences and so on. Wikipedia is not police station to do so. Get a job at police station if you want to work that kind of job. Just don't do it here on wikipedia.

You mention Osama bin Laden. In some countries the governments declared him as criminal and therefore looking after him. But no so with Sai Baba. Look this section [4] and compare it with this section [5]. Can you notice difference? You exaggerate the topic. Jonson22 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What?? With the Osama analogy I was only pointing out the flaw in your logic - in the argument your presented. If the content I add fails to meet WP:N or WP:OR then there is an issue - adding centrally relevant content from sources like BBC or CBC is absolutely not unencyclopaedic - hope you understand that!! What are you - some kinda cover-up-agent??? We present objective, netrual and comprehensive outline of issues central to the person's notability - whats wrong with that?? Isnt that what we are supposed to be doing here? If the issues pertinent to his notability are negative - we are left with no choice but to cover them( and not cover them up ) - for the sake of keeping the article comprehensive and informative. White adept (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know: - Which Governments are concerned? - Who wrote this comment? ("BBC"? It must be someone in BBC... who?) - What sources of information were used to make a statement like this? It is an easy phrase to write, but... I have not seen any warning in any government webpage for the whole world. Maybe governments feel responsibility about what they say, while the BBC journalist is only practicing sensationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.75.237 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-iterated in BBC's official response to Asia Times, BBC articles, BBC documentary "Secret Swami" etc. Goverments: Sweden, Denmark, Australian, Canadian, British, German, American and more - please research online. You may, for instance, want to check the American Embassy website. Tony Blair's letter to a British MP on the issue, UNESCO statement etc. If you look at forums and all you'll see people paid by the cult and some financially dependent on it going around claiming the UNESCO thing, American consulate thing is all a lie made up by critics, etc. Such blatant absurdities can be easily unsusbstantiated through a bit of on-line research For instance The American Consulate's warning can be read here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consular_Information_Sheet_-_India . BBC notes that the Consulate has confirmed it is a direct reference to raju. White adept (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources, soapboxing, and the arbitration committee

White adept and others, there has been extensive debate and mediation what constitutes a Wikipedia:reliable source. I do not think that Robbert Priddy and the Findings are considered reliable sources. I will post a link to the mediation about this if I can find it. I suggest you to read the talk page archives and check the history of the article, because I am too lazy to repeat those many discussions. Also I think that people will not appreciate soapboxing (voicing personal opinions unrelated to improving the article) here, though personally I do not care much. Please note that the arbcom has to right to ban users from editing this article without an extensive arbcom case, so be very with your edits (and to a lesser extent with your comments here). Andries (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The Findings - is very relevant because of its notability. As Michelle Goldberg points out[6]:

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

According to wikipedia "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena." Here the The Findings is much more than that - it is what this international-controversy all started with. So, ofcourse what it states is relevant - its not something you can cover-up. Also it has signed statements from people who has held the top-most positions in the sai organization.

Then if we go by what you are saying Haraldsson, self-published sources claiming miracles etc, self-published biography, etc all should be completely expunged first - they absolutely are not even remotely as notable as this work. Strange that you dont have a problem with the "cobra under bedsheet source" but don't want this centrally relevant document to be mentioned. I think you are the one who really deserves to get banned from wikipedia for shamelessly promulgating such biased falsities here on talk - under the umbrella of wiki policies( and that too for quite a long period I see). How come you smoothly ignore and never raise a question about the poorest quality sources - self-published by "sai-devotees"?

As for soapboxing am as much against it as an editor could be - the above post was merely done in response to mis-information being spread by an anonymous IP.

White adept (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:BostonMA/Mediation for discussion of sources. Andries (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept, the question is whether the Findings is a reliable source. It is true and undisputed that the Findings is an important document, but that is a different matter. I had described the contents of the Findings with reliable sources i.e. Salon.com This has already been discussed and I am sorry to say that if you want to be a serious editor of this article then you have to read all the old discussions. Do not expect me to give a detailed rebuttal to everything you write on the talk page when this has already been done in the archives. Btw, I still hold the opinion that the Findings should be linked to, even if this may be formally a violation of WP:BLP: not linking to a document that is described by many reputable sources as an important document contradicts common sense. Andries (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Findings published by David and Faye Bailey is another unreliable source containing large amounts of opinions and personal experiences. It is an unverifiable original research as per Wikipedia standards. Please refer to Wikipedia:reliable source. The Findings cannot be used as a reliable source or reference to this article. Also please familiarise yourself with the discussion about reliable sources, proposals and resolutions which were passed by the first and second arbitration commitee. ::RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Factual mistakes: bhajans and godman

• 1. "bhajans( devotional songs that are sung out aloud in praise of minor Hindu deities or in praise of sai baba himself)."

Untrue, not just of minor deities and not necessarily Hindu. I can provide sources on request.

• 2. "controversially described by his followers as a godman[1][6]"

From Godman_(Hindu_ascetic) "A godman is a colloquial name for a particular type of charismatic Hindu ascetic who has a high-profile presence, is capable of attracting attention and support from Indian society, and makes claims of spiritual attainments." Followers do not see SSB as a godman in this sense of the word and this is not supported by the listed sources i.e. Edwards, Linda & Lochtefeld, James G. (2002). Outsiders see him as a godman in this meaning of the word.

Andries (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Please provide source. We'll correct.
• 2. "Ascetic" is not what this person is. So if that term/definition applies to this individual, either way, is highly contested, I presume. So could we correct it to "controversially described as a godman"?

White adept (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ad 2. SSB presents himself as ascetic and the listed sources do not write that this description of SSB is controversial. Andries (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC documentary obviously does! Perhaps we could add the DTV documentary also.

White adept (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They do not use the meaning for Godman_(Hindu_ascetic) that is linked to. Andries (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"A bhajan is a type of Hindu devotional song[with], often simple, lyrics." Raju's bhajans are always in praise of himself - I dont think you can contest that[7]. In fact all are folk-hindu bhajans appropriated by this cult with the word "sai" or "sai baba" stuffed in here and there.

White adept (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept here is the description of bhajans from Sathya Sai Baba movement with one additional reference (David Bowen 1988). It is an undeniable fact that the people who sing bhajans sometimes worship SSB personally (or as the personification of the godhead i.e. istha deva).

Globally, local Sathya Sai Baba groups assemble to sing bhajans (devotional songs). Baba says that concentration on the name of God with the help of bhajans will easily lead to concentration on God and to higher devotion. Bhajans are sung at nearly every meeting. Bhajans are simple verses. One line is sung by a lead singer and is then repeated by the rest of the group. In those bhajans the name of traditional Hindu deities have sometimes been replaced by the names of Sathya Sai Baba.

Andries (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept, regarding the statement in the article that bhajans praise minor Hindu deities. This is unsourced and partially contradicted by the reputable secondary source. I admit that most bhajans praise Hindu deities (or SSB), but they are generally not minor and not necessarily Hindu.

"Devotees sometimes find themselves inspired to write their own songs, and the inclusion of these or devotional songs from non-Hindu traditions may be encouraged at Sai centres. The very act of singing bhajans thus combines the rigour of physical discipline, cleanliness, humility and chastity with the stimulation of highly charged emotional experience and sense of togetherness." from Kent, Alexandra (2001). Divinity and Diversity: A Hindu Revitalization Movement in Malaysia. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. pp. 49. ISBN 8791114403.

Andries (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, controversially described as a godman is clear enough - isnt it. We neednt draw conclusions as to if it is outsiders or devtoees who do that.

White adept (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i am afrid the whole page about sai baba has been over run by hate mongers(possibly evengalists)...some body need to do some thing about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nopes. It's just that raju is losing more and more of his henchmen and people are not so active in covering up his crimes anymore. If anyone/anything has over run it - it is the perspective/analysis from scholars, from The BBC, The CBC, The Times, The Guardian etc.

I understand from the research I did to edit this article; that this cult - whenever an allegation on raju comes to light - blames it immediately on "white devils", "christian evangelists", "fallen devotees", "judases" etc who are all "jealous" of the Indian godman's growing "fame and name". Thats the message they constantly send out to Indian devotees. Sad. You should be able to verify this on on your own. Anyways, Sureshnaidu, for you info: many editors here, including myself are not "evangelists"( if that would address your 'concern').

As hard to believe as it can be that people can be this cult-crazed - the evidence for such behavior can be found right here - in posts made by devotees above. On seeing videos where he fakes tricks - devotees say that he is doing it to "test" them( see a few posts above). Of course, as far as this cult is concerned- "there is always an excuse for everything".

White adept (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sureshnaidu,

It's obvious that the article is clearly biased, but there is nothing you or me can do to change it, since it's edition is not open or free anymore. In short: this Wikipedia article is owned by anti-Baba "editors", and that's all.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another thing: it seems that Andries is playing a fake pro-Baba role, while it is another anti-Baba, just faking a pro-Baba attitude, but in reality he is together with White adept, but only enacting another point-of-view, so they together fill the whole space here.

I am not sure anbout it, but this is what it seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are so pro-baba as you claim maybe you could you explain this statement :[8] or the the one about bomb attacks?

Calmly think about it - isn't the most "anti-baba", "anti-devotee" here is the person named raju himself? By making a show of his stupidity, greed, deceit and debauchery - he has made a laughing stock out of his devotees and all those who blindly followed him.

Another one of raju's quotes:

Christ declared. Sathya means truth[Sathya is the word for truth in many Indian languages - including in sanskrit which far predates 1000 B.C. So why would Christ "declare" that?]. 'He will wear a robe of red, a blood-red robe.' [Here raju points to the red coloured robe he happened to be wearing that that day]. He will be short[this is never said in any scripture gnostic, bible or anything], with a crown [ he points to his hair]. The lamb is the sign and symbol of love. Christ did not declare that he will come again, he said, 'He who made me will come again.' That ba ba [here raju refers to the bleating of the lamb / sheep / goat: baaaaaa baaaaaa'] is this baba, and sai, the short, curly-hair-crowned red-robed baba, is come.

Note that "baba" is a persian-hindu word for a fakir. See: Baba (honorific). There have been countless "babas" in India and there still are thousands who call themselves babas. If you are so pro-baba as you claim could you explain these silly-to-the-extreme quotes for me?

White adept (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisations are they treated here or not?

We should decided whether organisations are treated here or in Sathya Sai organisation or sathya sai baba movement. User:White adept deleted nearly everything relating to the organizations and re-added only the negative aspects from the Findings. This is not NPOV. I think the organizations should either be treated here entirely (the good, the bad and the ugly) or somewhere else.

The main problem with treating the organizations here is that the relationship between SSB and the organizations is unclear and not described in reliable sources. Is he a figurehead or a de facto leader? Reputable sources do not give an answer. So I propose to move/merge everything to Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If Britney spear's music is treated in the page about her, an authors works are discussed objectively in the page on the author, this person's works and what he is about should be summarily discussed here. No need to cover things up. I have stuck to sources like the Times, ABC, Tehelka, BBC etc and "The Findings" is a compilation of articles from different sources - hope you understand that. Only the most relevant did I touch upon. And by the way, which exactly is this section on organization that you are talking about?

White adept (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about this one-sided treatment of the organizations. An by the way do not confuse the Sathya Sai Organization with the Sathya Sai Central Trust. What is the relation between the person of Sathya Sai Baba and these organizations? It is not clear from the article and it cannot be made clear because it is unknown. In other words, treatment of the organizations can be considered with good reason off topic here.

"Central to the activities if the Sai organization is raising of funds which, the organization claims, are used for charity. According to an article by the Indian news-agency Thehelka, all donations to the Sathya Sai Central Trust have been given tax exemptions and the total value of the Sai Baba's recorded assets, movable and immovable, both within the country and abroad, is Rs 5,000 crores( approx. 1 Billion USD), "give or take a bit". The article states that every year, the Sathya Sai Central Trust is bloated with donations worth approximately Rs 65 crore. It also has about Rs 130 crore in fixed deposits (FD) and other term deposits all over the world. The trust has so far raised about Rs 385 crore in the form of loans for some of the Sai Baba's projects.[77]"

Andries (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it central to activities preached by this man and his foundation? Also its just an objective presentation of the relevant statistics. Collection of funds is central to the activities of devotees following raju's teachings as many analysts note. It is with this money that he built himself a chariot of gold, lives a luxury life, has the walls of his rooms plated with gold, gets chauffeured around in his several BMWs etc. Also the clearest explanation why it is centrally relevant was offered by raju himself:

“ The whole world will be transformed into Sathya Sai organisation ” —  Raju alias "sai-baba." "Sanathana sarathi", January 1999).

“ Out of the stomach emerged siva lingas of the weight of three tons. That is the reason why some strain on the face and body. ” —  Raju alias "sai baba". Words recorded by BBC

Not that it makes any more sense than what he blurted in front of clandestine BBC cameras( click the second quote for the video ) but it nevertheless explains why discussion of the organization is central to this page. Do we need a blockquote in the article to make this point clear?

Here is a recent quote. Not directly related to this discussion. But thought you might find it interesting.

"India is the only place where people are not worried about any attacks. In America , Germany and other countries, they cant eat well or sleep well. There is fear of bombs always in those countries. But in India, there is no fear of bombs. India will never have any such attacks."- Raju alias "sai-baba" on 22-10-2008. On 29-10-2008 was the terrorist attack on one of India's largest cities, Bombay in which around 195 innocents lost their lives.

White adept (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with White adept's one sided negative treatment of the organizations. Either the organizations should be treated here (the good, the bad, and the ugly) or at Sathya Sai Baba movement copied from the book gurus in America. "While some have suggested that the amount of actual service rendered by Baba is much less than the amount publicized, from my observation, members of many Sai Centers are exemplary in terms of their service to the community" Andries (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

EDITORS EXPOSED: A MUST SEE

Please Urgently See This Cartoon: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html

Editors seeing this simple cartoon can save dozens of hours of meaningless discussions about what's the problem with this current article here!

--189.15.94.60 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to "The Findings"

hey, it seems that the links to "The Findings" are now pointing to http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Findings/exbaba-findings.html

what is this? isn't it vandalism? shouldn't we block who is doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.68.137 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The purported "writings" of the godman - a section a user is attempting to add - I would like to point out is filled with unduly self-serving material. Self serving material and with self-serving comments made by a devotee - and not indicative of the mainstream's stance on such "writings." Further such things are not even authored by this "baba" but are stuff written and polished by the trust for promoting themselves - according to analysts.

"Books and writings endorsed by Sathya Sai Baba There are hundreds of books about Sai Baba in English alone. Sathya Sai Baba has stated to his servitors like V.K. Narasimhan that he loves to read books by authors who praise him. He is lauded by most writers, not only to the skies, but to above the highest heaven. He showers his supposed ‘grace’ only upon writers of rose-coloured and totally uncritical accounts of himself.

Unbelievable eulogies came from such writers as his biographer N. Kasturi, the Balu family, John Hislop, Howard Murphet, Samuel Sandweiss, Peggy Mason, J. Jegathesan, Phyllis Krystal, Joy Thomas, Rita Bruce, Birgitte Rodriguez and many more. I admit that I was deceived at the time I wrote my positive book about him - though it as one of the most restrained of all of them (excepting Prof. Erlendur Haraldssons often critical book). Only when I learned so much that I was forced - against my inclination - to re-evaluate nearly everything about him and to think critically and investigate thoroughly, did I begin to do so.

Meanwhile, most of the other authors have invested too much of their prestige and lives in their writings and engagement with this supposed ‘avatar’ of Vishnu, Rama and Krishna etc. to be able to be honest enough to investigate the evidence and realise many of their mistakes about him. This is reprehensible, of course, but the world will judge them when all the evidence is in, and it will certainly be to consider them major dupes, even though well-intentioned ones. Knowing a good deal about the tribulations at the hands of Sai Baba and his minions of several of the authors, their books are now mostly noteworthy to me for what they do not tell or consciously suppress!" - Robert Priddy

White adept (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Steel notes that these purported discourses are "packaged, highly edited, polished, condensed, enhanced, inaccurate, distant, different, adorned, significantly added to, snipped and hybridized" by the ' sathya sai trust.' White adept (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How interesting: White adept is an expert on "Sex Magic" and "Black Rites": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=prev&oldid=61314269

Rather, kindly see these two links where you can read the edit(s) of mine in full : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=61314638&oldid=61266871 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=62319131&oldid=62293553 White adept (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What I basically said on talk there is that there should, according to true traditions, be no sex out of marriage and there should be chastity in relationships and what the material on the page advocates( like stuff from some Crowley ) is not good and is evil in nature. And I, based on my spiritual studies, can absolutely affirm the same about this "baba." From an esoteric perspective, sexual abuse( what Mr Sing refers to as "the blowjob" in the BBC documentary) this person performs on innocent, unsuspecting victims reveals more than clearly its demonic nature and its need to continually absorb vital qi energy from victims, in a wretchedly-demonic manner to keep itself alive. This may sound far-fetched - but I can absolutely affirm it is so - it will also ask you to pray for it, to conduct rituals for it - for without the energy( your own energy ) you consciously give it - there is absolutely no way it can survive now. Also it will tell you that it can grant wishes - for every "wish" you ask and is "granted" there is something it takes from you - your vital energy - on an energetic plane it is irreversibly destroying you. Think about how "spiritual" it is to urge people to pray for material wishes? Why does it often launch into a speech glorifying its own "name and fame" ( which are all considered worthless attachments from a spiritual perspective )? Also of grave concern, from an esoteric perspective, is the grave unforgivable karma it makes devotees unconsciously gather by supporting, advocating and covering up for it. "Devotees" who support it through poojas, through actions or through thoughts will have to bear a share for the destructive acts of this thing - including for supporting its perverting of authentic traditions. While this person sexually, energetically, karmically, morally and spiritually destroys his "devotees"; Listen to what true spiritual seekers will tell you:

"If the sexual energy is transmuted into ojas or spiritual energy by pure thoughts, it is called sex sublimation in western psychology. Sublimation is not a matter of suppression or repression, but a positive, dynamic, conversion process. It is the process of controlling the sex energy, conserving it, then diverting it into higher channels, and finally, converting it into spiritual energy or ojas shakti. The material energy is changed into spiritual energy, just as heat is changed into light and electricity. Just as a chemical substance is sublimated or purified by raising the substance through heat into vapor which again is condensed into solid form, so also, the sexual energy is purified and changed into divine energy by spiritual sadhana." - Swami Sivananda

"The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama

While mentioning this, I think am obliged to clarify that such practices as male-female dual cultivation of the White Tibetan Tantrism should only be undertaken by someone who has reached an extremely high level and has completely and without trace overcome lust, desires and material attachments. One can casually dabble in esoteric practices like this only at the risk of absolute self-ruin. Second - I personally am not into any of this white tantrism stuff and am unmarried. So, if anything, am merely an Intellectual Expert as regards White Tantrism and also please dont resort to personal attacks.

White adept (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Is wikipedia a place to sell sai merchandize?

The article is being run over and ruined by so called "devotees". See for instance now how an anonymous IP now thinks wikipedia is a place to advertise his sai goods. He wont stop, wont take no reason, and absolutely refuses to discuss - he seems to take for granted this as a place to sell his merchandise. White adept (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And why are you consciously attempting to mislead other editors with these claims? Who told you devotees do that?? This is what devotees, including many who held top-most positions in the organization, do. Am pretty darn sure it is not that you are not aware. And if it were just ignorance - kindly make sure that you read at least one of the vahinis.

(A link to What Sai Baba says about [Selfless Service])

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, The Times, The Guardian have all covered what this cult all about. Lol. :) And am definitely aware. We all know what "selfless service" they did by bashing up a 70 year old man four times. BBC report: [9] By stealing kidneys from patients in their hospital : See Australian Broadcasting Corporation Report. By robbing an old women of her home. See Tehelka Report[10]. By treating young boys in their "charity school" as pleasure-merchandize for this wretched "baba" ( See sediced doc and The Findings) . By killing four young boys so that they dont reveal anything. By getting donations of million in the name of "service" to build chariots out of gold, BMWs and several luxury palaces for their leader. By driving four young men to suicide through sexual abuse. See Times Report[11]

White adept (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop doing your merchandise for this "Findings". This document is fraudulent. Its contents are not reliable. Please, see: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Findings/exbaba-findings.html

Let me provide a link so people can read any PAGE of one of the sixteen Sai Baba's book - not as merchandise, but so they can click something here and start to know Sai Baba for real. You put tons of links to this biased doc and you don't want me to put links to Baba's words in his own article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is completely lacking in academic/media notablity. Do The BBC doc, Times, DTV doc etc even mention it? You cannot advertize here. This is a wikipedia article not "baba's" propaganda park. I dont understand why you still try to deceive and recruit innocents into this cult? What wretched pleasure do you get by doing this? White adept (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take utmost care when dealing with controversial statements on a BLP article

This note is meant as a reminder to all editors involved with this article to exercise caution, particularly when dealing with material which could be viewed as either defamatory or self-serving. Wikipedia requires that we adequately source information about living individuals to the utmost standard, and that anything which does not adhere to these standards must be removed immediately (no mere citation notices or talk page notice, although a talk page mention in addition to removal would not be a bad idea). ←Spidern→ 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Confrontation between editors, and the solution

I have noted heated arguments aimed in both directions for this article. The subject is clearly controversial, and if we're ever going to improve it we need to agree on certain principles. Wikipedia has several policies which we absolutely must abide by here, or else we will end up with an article that is interwoven with a mishmash of unsourced criticism and praise. I suggest that all parties involved have a read through some of these policies:

• Reliable sources - Possibly the most important Wikipedia policy available. We must stick to independent, secondary and tertiary sources (rather than primary ones, such as unpublished critics or Sai Baba-affiliated organizations). There are literally thousands of these to choose from.
• Neutrality - It is important that we don't use language which is overly hostile or supportive of the subject. If information expressed is an opinion, attribute it to the person used in the source holding that opinion.
• Verifiability - If a claim is made by multiple reliable sources, then it is considered to be Verifiable. We must remember that Wikipedia is not meant to be an outlet for truth; the idea of "truth" can be subjective, and vary from person to person. Instead, all we can do is base our content on reliable sources that report on the subject matter.

If we stick to these principles, we can get a lot done with much less personal confrontation, and avoid escalations to dispute resolution, such as arbitration cases. Those options should only be available as last resorts. In the end, true resolution comes when individuals decide that they will put aside personal differences and write an encyclopedia. ←Spidern→ 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts to ensure objectivity is very much appreciated ( and was certainly much needed). Would certainly try my very best to make my edits conform to the wiki-principles you outlined above. White adept (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seduced by Sai Baba

FYI, the documentary under this title was produced by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, not a Dutch one. For more info, see this link: [12]. ←Spidern→ 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from lead

The controversies were again brought to media attention when two long-term devotees (and authors of three books on Sai Baba, which they removed from the market upon their discovery of abuse and deceit), David and Faye Bailey, published a document which they titled "The Findings.". The document carried testimony from many ex-devotees, including those who had held high positions in the organization, to the effect that the godman fakes his "materializations", doesn't magically heal the sick, and also testimonies from several victims of sexual-abuse and testimonies revealing economic foul-play in the organization.

This paragraph suffers from a lack of reliable sourcing, and undue weight this document which was not published by a third-party organization or peer-reviewed by academics. The source provided is a possible copyvio of Salon, which could be used elsewhere in the article. ←Spidern→ 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think part of this paragraph is reliably sourced to the article by Michelle Goldberg in salon.com Andries (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was centrally relevant since we are not sourcing from the document itself but mentioning that the controversies were again brought to media attention when the document was published - a fact which can be sourced to Michelle Goldberg's article. White adept (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, Id like to hear your perspective on it before restoring it. White adept (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another removed paragraph

According to ex-devotee David Bailey, the author of three books on the baba and co-author of The Findings: "During darshan, Sai Baba carries vibhuti in tablet form between the third and fourth fingers of his right hand, with spare tablets in the hand holding up his robe. He crushes a tablet when required, and transfers tablets during the taking of letters. I have watched this happen innumerable times... Tablet-palming can be clearly seen on many videos, if slowed down to frame-by frame viewing, including in our wedding day interview video, used at the beginning of “God lives in India.” This video has been removed from sale by the Trust. Australian television, in it’s programme ’60 Minutes’ showed how these ‘B grade’ conjuring tricks are done." He says that "All powder vibhuti is produced by roasting cow dung with sandal wood, and manufactured vibhuti bought elsewhere, is then double sieved by ladies of the ashram seva dal, before being packaged for interview room distribution.". Bailey also states that the jewelery made by the baba are often "worthless trinkets" some of which "are bought in Puttaparthi village, but mainly they come from Bangalore and Hyderabad." He states that the jewels in these are often colored glass with silver paper pasted behind.

This paragraph suffers from undue weight, and the document linked to is not peer reviewed or published by a third party. ←Spidern→ 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Older versions of this article contained a carefully worded reliably sourced paragraph that treated the Findings without using the Findings as a source. And by the way, why is the Findings called an initial report when it was clearly not? Intial report was Tal Brooke's book. Andries (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Haraldsson

Added source for sentence in article

"The retired Icelandic psychology professor Erlendur Haraldsson investigated Sathya Sai Baba and documented the guru's reported miracles and manifestations through first-hand interviews with devotees and ex-devotees."

Proposed new sentence with source

"Like Narasimhaiah, Haraldsson did not receive SSB's permission to investigate SSB under labaratory conditions."

Restored the "Writings" section

This section was first created at revision 265642703 (04:50, 22 January 2009), together with another modifications in the article, but it was removed in revision 265660619 (07:48, 22 January 2009).

I myself tried to add it again, but without other modifications in the article, in revision 265718618

Next, several unsucessfull tries of removing the "Writings" section of the article were made (see history logs from 16:26, 22 January 2009 to 18:43, 22 January 2009), but these tentatives stopped with the intervention of Huggle (application for dealing with vandalism).

After the above mentioned wipe-out failure, the "Writings" section contents were merged into another place in this highly controversial edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=265755100 revision 265755100).

But this section is a major improvement on the Sathya Sai baba article!

Based on the study of Wikipedia policies, the current article: - is not a Neutral-Point-Of-View representative - does not respect basic human dignity - suffers from information supression

While the "Writings" section itself follow all Wikipedia's policies, it also moves the article towards: - Neutral Point Of View (the "Writings" section informations are neutral, and the well chosen citation from professor Kasturi's preface for the Upanishad Vahini published Sai Baba's book does a little balance, considering the overweight of negative citations) - basic human dignity (gives due respect to the subject) - gives access to very important and notable information about the subject (Baba has written sixteen books on spirituality)

Conclusion: The "Writings" section is a very good and well done effort towards the improvement of Sai Baba's article.

Thanks.

--I myself again (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself again, I recognize that you are trying to make a valuable contribution on the subject. I can understand and empathize with your intentions, but there are some problems with the content you added. While you did source it, the three sources are what we consider to be primary sources. Since primary sources are so closely connected to the subject itself, and due to the controversial nature of the subject, we are obligated to use secondary and tertiary sources. These include Newspaper articles, and independent print publications such as books or academic journals. You can find some linked to above, (see books, journals, and news). If you are able to create a writings section based on any of the mentioned reliable sources, it would be most welcome. ←Spidern→ 04:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this can be done. I did not find sources. SSB is not famous because of his writings. Andries (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be surprised. Local libraries are a great resource. If you use the Google scholar search to find scholarly sources above, you can request them or in some cases if your library belongs to a university, directly access them. Drop me an email if you need any further assistance. ←Spidern→ 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will try, but what I have seen until now in reputable sources is that SSB's controversies are treated, his miracles, his appeal, sometimes his teachings, his habits, the ashram, only rarely his speeches, but never his writings. Andries (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dale Beyerstein

Source : Dale Beyerstein, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC Canada

Subject: In reply to a letter sent to him from Dr Elwndur Haraldsson, University of Iceland - October 1985.

(...) I certainly agree with the point you make at the end of your book that in the absence of agreement for controlled testing of claimed paranormal powers, we must make rough and ready judgements analogous (similar in certain respects) with judgements made in court house contexts. Analogous but not identical for obvious reasons.

On these sorts of grounds the evidence seems overwhelming against taking the materialisation claims seriously.

Sai Baba is caught out in self-puffery in so many instances - allowing omniscience claims when his language abilities are only average, and so on. And not only allowing them, but making them himself. And he speaks so loosely in so many ways that his denials that he uses sleight of hand cannot be given any real weight. The overwhelming evidence - given the film analysis, the loose anecdotal nature of the claims etc all point so definitely in this direction.

Moreover the widespread claims of sexual hanky panky and the evidence of association with the gold business - although not conclusive - must be seriously entered into the overall picture.

On the question you asked : 'Sam Dalal' is a name given by James Randi. Randi in a phone conversation said that Sai Baba 'materialised' a Seiko watch for a Seiko watch company executive visiting India. Sam Dalal asked for the serial number from the executive as I understood it, and got it. The number was then sent back to Japan for tracing. Turns out the number was a watch which was to have been stored in a warehouse not far from the site where the 'materialisation' took place.

B. Premanand (IRM) mentions Kasturi deleted the Seiko reference from his book after the investigation.(.....).

The letter is reproduced on many websites, in Premanand's writings, in The Findings and in several other sources. There was a citation needed tag near a statement from Dale Beyerstein. Perhaps it could be fixed now. White adept (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Prema Sai Baba incl. references

"Baba's biography claimed that his next incarnation "Prema(love) Sai Baba" will be born in Mysore State.[citation needed]"

from the deleted article Prema Sai Baba

Prema Sai Baba will be the male reincarnation of Shakti in the 21st century according to the prediction by the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba first mentioned Prema Sai Baba in a discourse on July 6, 1963 in which he stated that he is the second of three avatars, the first avatar being Shirdi Sai Baba and the future avatar being Prema Sai Baba .

According to his official biography (also labelled a hagiography) by Narayana Kasturi, Prema Sai Baba will be born in Mysore state. Many followers of SSB believe that Prema Sai Baba will be born in a village near the city Mysore in the year 2021, due to devotees claims that SSB divulged this information to them in private interviews.

In the discourse on 6 July 1963 SSB claimed to be a reincarnation of Shiva and Shakti in 1963. SSB further said in the discoure that his previous incarnation Shirdi Sai Baba was an incarnation of Shiva and that Prema Sai Baba would be a reincarnation of Shakti. In contrast, Narayana Kasturi’s official biography/hagiography of SSB stated that Shirdi Sai Baba was Shakti incarnated and that Prema Sai Baba was to be an incarnation of Shiva.

According to Donald Taylor in a 1987 article titled "Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement”, Sathya Sai Baba's 1963 declaration that he would reincarnate as Prema Sai Baba defused the problem of authority. According to Taylor, all authority remains firmly in Sathya Sai Baba's hands as long as he lives and anyone else who claims authority in his lifetime would be recognized as an imposter .

Andries, will you kindly sign your posts? The first two sources you used are not generally permissible by Wikipedia standards here. Sathya Sai Baba discourses are certainly off limits, because they are considered a primary source. And N. Kasturi's book is also off limits because it is published by Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can only rely on academic/third-party sources here, which do not prognosticate. ←Spidern→ 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please, Spidern, do you seriously suggest to remove all biographical information that is sourced either directly or indirectly to Kasturi? Then there will be no biographical information left. Andries (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a secondary source that summarizes Kasturi, that is permissible. But we cannot source to him directly. Have a look at the present sources in the article: there is nothing that is sourced to Kasturi right now. ←Spidern→ 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Narayana Kasturi "According to the anthropologist Lawrence A. Babb, virtually all existing accounts of Sathya Sai Baba's life are based on the hagiographic writings of Narayana Kasturi."Andries (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we source most of the biographical information to Babb, instead of web magazines of doubtful quality. At least Babb is honest about his sources (Kasturi) and realizes its very limited value. Andries (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources are generally of higher quality, but we don't have to use them exclusively. As long as it's published by a reputable source (be it a book, journal, or news media), there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to use it. ←Spidern→ 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but newspaper that uncritically use Kasturi's "biography" should not be used for this article without attribution. Andries (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case there is a good reason to be wary of newspapers because they have uncritically used Kasturi's hagiography without attribution. I think in this case we should use Babb or other academic sources. Andries (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new sentences

"Sathya Sai Baba predicted that the third and last incarnation of the three avatars, called "Prema Sai Baba" (or "Prem Sai") will be born in Karnataka state.Prema Sai will be an incarnation of Shiva.Andries (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Capriciousness and lilas

One striking feature of SSB's behavior that is missing in the article is his capriciousness which he admits with his famous slogan "Love my uncertainty". His capriciousness is closely connected to the devotees' tendency to interpret SSB's behavior as lilas. I think this should be added to the article.

Proposed new sentences.

"Sathya Sai Baba's behavior and especially his miracles tend be capricious. Often his unpredictable behavior is interpreted as lilas (divine plays) by his devotees."Andries (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Mediation by BostonMA

To resolve edit warring between editors there was a mediation by BostonMA. Several sources related to the Sathya Sai Baba article were discussed.

• Reliable Sources: This mediation has detailed information on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation#Understanding_the_Reliable_Sources_Policy
• Inadequately Sourced Materials: Detailed discussion on why some of the unreliable sources which are used heavily in the current article cannot be used.

• Some of the Unreliable sources which were discussed includes The Findings by Bailey - never published by reputable source.
• Site alleged videos of faked materializations.

• Discussion on use of websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Use_of_Websites
• Determination of Reputable Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Implementation_of_Policies#Determination_of_Reputable_Sources

Here's the mediation link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots of alleged materialization were often first published by reputable sources and I think this is okay. Andries (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I spent hours doing research to add pieces to show a more neutral portrait of Sathya Sai Baba; I was very kind and did not remove all the rhetoric and angry statements that are clearly added by anti-Sai activists. A person googling Sai Baba wikipedia would never be able to weed through all the anti-Sai, but would get turned away from even the anti-sentiment due to the angry tones that it is written. Can't everyone agree to make the Wikipedia page just state facts, like an encyclopedia? If people want to go to the pro-Sai websites or the anti-Sai websites, they can do so after reading the simple Wikipedia page. Thank you. ----

The reason why there were 2 arbitrations and endless edit wars was because this article is weakly sourced. :Arbitration commitee has recommended editors to use NPOV sources. If all the editors use these proposed sources I am sure this article can be improved. I do agree that this article still heavily uses the same weak sources for which the previous editors were banned. To weed out these unreliable sources and make it truly NPOV will be a challenge and its going to take time. ::RadiantEnergy 04 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I have stated many times, I checked the recommended sources and they are not very suitable for this article. They are fine for Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we merge the Sathya Sai Baba movement with this article. The movement should be a part of this article. ::RadiantEnergy 06 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that that is a good idea. Both articles are already quite long and it is like merging Christianity with Jesus. Andries (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, If you are serious about merging, which I hope you are not, then please propose it here Wikipedia:Proposed_merger. Andries (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically the Sathya Sai Movement should be part of the Sathya Sai Baba article. The Sathya Sai Baba article is unbalanced right now, highly critical and heavily uses unreliable sources. If we get enough positive reliable material / sources related to this article and succeed in improving it then we don't have to merge the movement with the main article. If we fail then we may have to merge these two in order to make it more balanced. First step will be to improve the main article. ::RadiantEnergy 08 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is in part highly critical because reliable sources have reported about him highly critically. I see no problem with that. Andries (talk)

Hi Radiantenergy, even I consider the current version overly critical. To get rid of most of the unreliable sources you only have to go back to an older version. Your intention to merge the two articles that describe different subjects if you do not like the end result of what reputable sources have stated, sounds to me like a reverse Wikipedia:POV fork. Andries (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way Radiantenergy, I have used some of the recommended sources on the talk page and waiting for you or others to incorporate them in the article. Andries (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How many relevant notable facts that can be sourced to reliable sources exist? Very few. Andries (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC

About Radiantenergy

RadiantEnergy, you appear to be a new user (just registered in Jan, 2009), but you also appear to be very knowledgeable about arb com rulings and wikipedia policies, which is unusual for such a new editor. my question is, are you an experienced user under a new name? or are you just a new user who's learned very quickly? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered question similar to yours when discussing in the wikipedia biography notice board. I will clarify again. Users who look at my user page history assumes that I am new to wikipedia. But I am not new to wikipedia. I have been contributing to wikipedia in a couple of articles since 2007 as unregistered user. Here's some of the articles I have contributed since 2007.

• Ramakrishna
• Swami Vivekananda

These were not controversial topics. Wikipedia never enforced any rule saying I have to first register as a user to contribute to wikipedia. It was my choice to register as a user or not. I had followed a couple of topics in wikipedia closely since 2007. Brahma Kumari - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumari. Sathya Sai Baba and Prem Rawat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat. All these articles have been very controversial and had years of edit wars. I had followed the second arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba very closely. Unfortunately even after 2 arbitrations this article seems to be going nowhere. I know its a very controversial topic so I decided to register as a user before starting my contributions to this article. Its going to be the most challenging task compared to the other articles I have contributed so far. I am hopeful that this article can be improved if we try sincerely. I have spent a lot of time in familiarising myself with all the earlier discussions, arbitration rulings and proposals. I firmly believe that following Jossi Proposals and arbitration commitee rulings will definitely help us in improving this article. Hope I have answered all your questions. :::RadiantEnergy 07 february 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks. you did answer all my questions, and i do appreciate the work you are doing here Theserialcomma (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request: try to avoid mass revert/complete reverts

Can all users agree to not to make mass reverts/complete reverts unless with very good reason. Most edits have some merit, so please spend the time to weed out the good from the bad and the ugly. Also, as I have stated already several times, please take the time to read the former discussion and look at older versions of the article: the discussion used to be more knowlegeable (though also more hostile) and the article used to be better, in my opinion.Andries (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Violations

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

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

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

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

An earlier post of mine on the issue:

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

The Findings - is very relevant because of its notability. As Michelle Goldberg points out[13]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

references

)