Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

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

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

Please, correct the passage.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

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

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

Just asking. I'd like to hear everyone.

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

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

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

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

First arbitration rulings

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

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

2) Content in biographies of living persons

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

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

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

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

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

5) Critical information in biographies of living persons

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

6) Removal of poorly sourced negative material

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

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

Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals

1) Finding of Facts :

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

2) Rulings on NPOV and sources:

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

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

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

3) Proposals: .

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

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

Second arbitration rulings on using Robert Priddy as a source

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

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

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

RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Remedies from the Second Arbitration:

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

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

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[1]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sathya Sai Baba - Breaches in the new template / current version rewritten by User:White_Adept and your feedback

Before starting the discussion I would like clarify on the old and new template.

• What's the Old Template of the article  : Is the copy of the article which was maintained till Jan 5th 2009 before User:White_adept breaches. Here's the article copy as of Jan 5th 2009 - Please see the contents - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463
• What's the new template of the article: The new template is the current article after [[User:White_Adept] 300+ edits based on unreliable sources and breaching most of the WP:BLP rules. The Current article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Arbitration rulings breaches in the current article:

• Second Arbitration ruling on NPOV Sources:

New template rewritten by User:White_Adept has breached this ruling directly as it heavily relies on unreliable sources such as "The Findings". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27

• Second Arbitration ruling on poor negative sources:

New template added by User:White_Adept has several POV sections based on poor negative unreliable sources. Directly breaching the above ruling.

It relies on unreliable sources such as Basava Premananda and his book which were never accepted as reliable sources during BostonMA mediation discussions. Here are the sections from reference Basava Premananda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram

• Second Arbitration ruling on attack websites: Second arbitration made it very clear not to use negative attack websites in the article like Priddy. I saw a couple of negative attack website which were used in this new template directly breaching the above ruling.

Examples of negative attack sites used in the article

• http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/8/extramurders.htm
• http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/Murders.htm
• http://saiguru.net

What's BLP's have been breached in this new template:

• Reliable Sources - WP:RS: This rule have been breached I have already explained how we have major sections of unreliable stories in the article.
• The current article has clearly failed to meet Wikipedia:Verifiabilty standards
• The article is biased and has 90% WP:UNDUE Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. Due to User:White_Adept's biased editing the Criticism on Baba in this article has been increased from 40% to 90% directly violating wikipedia policy on WP:UNDUE criticism on a Biography of Living Persons.
• Article is openly biased and violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style as it is written neither in neutral or encyclopedic tone.

Important Proposals - Please read your feedback is requested

As the new template / current article rewritten by User:White_Adept violates most of the WP:BLP and Remedies of Second Arbitration Ruling we are left with only two options.

First Proposal: Reverting to the Old Template

• The old template was more balanced in nature and is definitely a better version.
• The old template has been maintained for all these years and did not break all of the WP:BLP rules and arbitration rulings as in the new template.

Please give your feed back mentioning whether you agree with this proposal.

Second Proposal: Proposal for Deleting the article

• As the current new template breaks all the above rules it can be proposed to be deleted as it defaming a Living Person based on unreliable sources and clearly Wikipedia:Libel. Wikipedia policy of Biography of Living Persons says as follows "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed".

Please give your feedback. Please clearly mention whether you agree with this proposal or not.

Please Note:

We cannot just continue with the current state of the article violating all these rulings.

Editing and trying to rectify the 300+ edits of User:White_Adept is out of question as almost every major section and contents has been restructured and rewritten.

Unless the article is reverted to the earlier better version the disruption done by User:White_Adept can never be rectified.

Please add your feed back below - You can even add your preference like this is my first choice and this proposal is my second choice.

Radiantenergy (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Feed Back / Response to the above Proposals:

1. Proposal for Reverting the article to earlier version as of Jan 5th 2009:

Reverting to a better version is my first choice - Radiantenergy (talk)

The main problem with the article is that it suffers from neglect. Errors crept in and remained uncorrected long before Whiteadept started to edit this article. I propose to go back to 03:21, 21 December 2007 Andries (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the above version article copy on Dec 21st 2007 is better than article copy on Jan 5th 2009 version. You can probably give a quick comparison comparing each major section in the above 2 versions. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Citizendium article is a lot better than the Wikipedia aricle, but please do not copy without giving credit to Citizendium. Andries (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

No. We have to look with in wikipedia for a better version. As I said before if nothing works out or we all don't agree on proposal 1 for finding a better version. Then We have to go with the second proposal as the current article breaks all the WP:BLP rules as outlined in the WP:BLP rules for deletion. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Proposal for Deleting the Current Article as it is unreliable and Wikipedia:Libel

If nothing works out. This will be my second choice - Radiantenergy (talk)

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

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

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

Vandalism

This is a controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations. Please don't delete major sections of the article with out discussing in the talk page. It is considered as Vandalism in wikipedia. Lately there has been increased vandalism incidents. If you have any concerns please discuss in the talk page. If you plan to contribute to this article please familiarise yourself with the earlier discussions and also discuss your edits first in the talk page. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

references

)

Deleted

• [2]

"rv point of view)": what do you want to say?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.92.250 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A reminder about sources

This is a reminder about sourcing policy. Reliable sources for use in this article must be third-party, secondary or tertiary sources. Robert Priddy must not be used unless published by a reputable journal. Critical websites are also not generally permitted. The official Sathya Sai Organization websites are out of the question. ←Spidern→ 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is for me, too! Is it not? [3] My text:

Looking for an explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikifying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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