Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

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

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

Please, correct the passage.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

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

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

Just asking. I'd like to hear everyone.

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

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

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

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

First arbitration rulings

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

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

2) Content in biographies of living persons

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

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

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

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

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

5) Critical information in biographies of living persons

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

6) Removal of poorly sourced negative material

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

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

Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals

1) Finding of Facts :

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

2) Rulings on NPOV and sources:

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

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

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

3) Proposals: .

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

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

Second arbitration rulings on using Robert Priddy as a source

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

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

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

RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Although RadiantEnergy seems blissfully unaware of the fact, the title of Priddy's second book is clumsily misquoted in the above-mentioned Arb. Committee ruling. Their disparaging reference to Library holdings may therefore also be unreliable. The exact title is quoted in the Wikipedia article on 'Robert C. Priddy' as: End of the Dream: the Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. Collected Articles of Robert Priddy. Podanur, Tamilnadu: Premanand, B., 2004, 594 pages; Series: Skeptic Book Club No. 19.

Ombudswiki (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)  

Remedies from the Second Arbitration:

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

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

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

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.

This link does not contain any reference to White adept or arbitration concerning him. Please correct the link so the arbitration can be found 84.215.31.172 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I find this hyperactivity and activism by RadiantEnergy quite alarming. (Who, by the way, are "we"?) Can this recent re-ignition of previous fires be related to the decision to pardon User SSS108 for his previous inappropriate behaviour, which brought the article into disrepute?

PLEASE consider the following opinion, which I had already decided to publish before I came across this manic flurry of opposition to the recent IMPROVEMENTS to this unbalanced article:

I (and, I am sure, many others) applaud the recent long overdue improvements to this hitherto truth-deficient Wikipedia article on the controversial guru Sathya Sai Baba. If further injections of balanced information (and an improvement in the sparse bibliographical references) can be administered, the Sathya Sai Baba article may finally cease to be an acute embarrassment to the majority of unbiased Wikipedia editors, who provide us all with such useful and RELIABLE information on so many topics. (Incidentally, the suggestion to incorporate the 100 per cent partisan article on the 'Sathya Sai Movement' (which is a blatant advertisement for the Sathya Sai Organisation posted by persons unknown) may indicate the true motives of the proposer.)

If there really is to be a vote on these issues (by whom?), please take all this into consideration. RadiantEnergy seems to be in an indecent anti-wikipedian hurry to influence the content of the article - as User SSS108 was until he finally received his merited Arb. Com. punishment a couple of years ago.) Ombudswiki (talk) 05:33, 5 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)

1. There is still some material sourced to the Findings instead of the reputable sources that treat the Findings. (It used to be reliably sourced in older versions)

2. Remarks about Dale Beyerstein are not reliably sourced. (A short comment about Beyerstein used to be reliably sourced)

3. Paragraph about a corpse is sourced to Indian skeptic. (Indian skeptic was rejected as a source during mediation). I do not think that this can be reliably sourced

Andries (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andries, could you point out an article version in which these statements were reliably sourced, or place a draft here on the talk page of the relevant sections which we could then transfer to the article? In the meantime, I think the in-link link to the findings website should go, and I'll take it out. Cheers, Jayen466 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let this run a bit then, and come back if the wikifying tag is still on in a week or two. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, You said "Reverting the page to an earlier version goes against the Wikipedia ethos". I would like to remind that [[WP:BLP] clearly says when the WP:BLP is violated then you can revert back to better version - "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic".

You also said earlier that we will lose the improvements done to the topic since January. I really don't see any improvements I only see several pages of criticism added based on unreliable sources such as "The Findings" and "Basava Premananda" inspite of the second arbitration warning his editors to start adding positive content based on Jossi Proposals.

The changes you have made did not make a lot of difference to the article. It still breaks all the WP:BLP rules. The current article is no where close to the old article. You can compare for yourself the old and the new template. I don't have to pinpoint as there are so many changes which were added to the article related to Criticism.

In the Writing style of biography rule says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style. "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability". But the current article lays so much information on Criticism based on minority views.

The following examples are examples of Wikipedia:Libel - basically defaming the well known public figure based on unreliable sources. The current article is definitely a defamatory of Sathya Sai Baba.

• I still see the murder images taken from the main source Robert Priddy and Basava Premananda - unreliable sources still in the article. User:White_Adept himself agreed that its main source was Robert Priddy and Bassava Premananda. That's still there.
• There is a whole section about Murders again based on Basava Premananda just removing the reference attack websites link and leaving the content is not fixing anything.
• Here's another example of your editing not fixing the issues. You removed the reference Priddy but did not remove the contents added from reference Priddy. Here is the statement you did not remove from the article referencing Priddy. "The CID interrogated Subbappayya twice, despite the ashram authorities demanding they present a valid authority to do so." - This is from the Murder Section in the article. How is this fixing the article and restoring Wp:BLP rules?
• Here is yet another example. You removed the following reference from section 'Raising Funds" - ""Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can", M Seetha Shailaja" - saying it is self published source. Then why didn't you remove the contents added from this reference? There is a whole paragraph added from this reference which still exists in the article now with out a reference. I really want to know the answers for these biased edits?
• The huge section from "The Findings" is still in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27
• A whole section responding to Criticism had been removed. I can go on and on.
• Your changes have n't made much of a difference and I am wondering why you are against reverting User:White_Adept changes but never got involved during the arbitration enforcement case if you so strongly support his edits.

I am definitely think you are supporting User;White_Adept edits based on unreliable souces. If you want take responsibility for his irresponsible edits. I don't have a problem. We can open that arbitration enforcement case again and you can defend all his edits and the reason behind adding pages of negative contents based on unreliable sources.

I am still continuing my plan about reverting the article as you are the only one opposing it and still did not give a valid explanation why we should continue with this article with too many WP:BLP broken rules and wikipedia:libel. Your edits have not made a big difference in restoring the WP:BLP rules. The other only option is to propose for deleting this article. WP:BLP says "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". I would like to revert it to a better version rather than proposing for deletion. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all I will kindly ask that you stop accusing me of supporting the edits of another editor, as it is simply unproductive to do so. I stepped in here after the arbitration case in an attempt to work towards resolution between both parties (I didn't even know that the article existed before then). I am trying to improve the article, and have worked towards fixing undue weight problems. I restructured the page and have consolidated existing sources so that the weight of the sources can clearly be judged, while before we had numerous duplicates and it was difficult to do so. I'm doing everything I can to address your concners; but you cannot expect another editor to bend over backwards to satisfy your own needs. Expecting me to address a problem before I completely what the problem is is also unreasonable. My reasoning behind keeping is that content should be preserved whenever possible as opposed to wiping it out. Now that you have pointed to specific issues, I will attempt to address them. ←Spidern→ 22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are too many WP:BLP issues with the current article. Nobody is wiping out the content as you mentioned. We are only trying to revert to a better copy which has been maintained for all these years.

• The new template has been added only from Jan 8th 2009 with a lot of controversial material. I think reverting to a better version is the only way to undo the damage caused by [[User:White_Adept]'s 300+ edits.
• The new template has totally wiped out the old copy which has followed the WP:BLP better. The old template has been wiped out by User:WHite_ADept template wiping out years of editorial work and I am not going to agree with that.
• I am still planning on doing the revertion. I cannot keep pin pointing all the issues to you there are too many issues and too many rules which are broken. You also don't seem to be aware of any of the earlier discussion (Mediation by BostonMA) - which talks clearly about the Sathya Sai Baba sources as you keep justifying the current article.
• You still haven't explained your edits. You removed references and left the contents still in the article. We have a couple of paragraphs of unsourced material with out reference since you removed the reference and did not remove the contents. That's like adding another problem to this already controversial article. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:57, 2 Ma

(unident) Murder image is not a violation of Wikipedia:Libel. Andries (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"radiantenergy", most of the sources I added ( kindly verify), are from BBC, The Times, The Guardian, anthropologist Lawrence Babb etc. They are very reliable. There are some sources - (both positive as well as negative)- which border on WP: SELF - we can and certainly should take them out. Let us not engage in meaningless personal accusations. I don't think reverts would be constructive - there is a lot of relevant and well sourced info here - that we should be careful not to blank out through reverts. Also - if you could be specific on what issues exist - including any perceived issue with any source - I think there is a good opportunity here to resolve the issues through discussion. White adept (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that the article on Sathya Sai Central Trust from Sreeja M is an article from Thehelka - one of India's leading investigative News Agencies. The murder section is based on reports from leading news agencies such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, The BBC, India Today amongst others sources- The murder scene images had appeared in India Today as well. White adept (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:White_Adept - How come you are suddenly getting involved after missing all these days. You never answered to the arbitration enforcement case and also you never answered to the repeatedly violations. You are talking about improvements to the article after causing so much disruption completely wiping out a good old template? Radiantenergy (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to characterize all contributions that you don't agree with as "disruptive" - I did contribute a significant amount of objective information and analysis from high-quality sources. Some sources, I agree, should not have been used - but I was not aware of the arbitration committee decisions when I used them in my inital edits. I think these issues with the article have been addressed quite well by User:Spidern in his recent edits - and I think you can count on him to make this article in-line with WP:NPOV.

White adept (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now you are questioning my involvementt after causing so much disruption making 300+ edits to a controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations based on unreliable sources.

I never said I was new to wikipedia. Any user out there watching the article and its discussions for a month will know what we are talking about. Neither Wikipedia nor this article is a rocket science.

Difference between you and me while you were denying those arbitration rulings and adding banned sources I spent a lot of time familiarising the earlier dicussions. There are n't too many negative weak sources. These have already been discussed in the earlier discussion like - Mediation by BostonMA. This was pointed out by User:Andries right in this talk page to you. When you were in denial I really spent time looking at these sources and the earlier discussions.

You still have n't explained why you were missing during the arbitration enforcement case.

I also have another question for you. I am still curious why you suddenly started editing the Sathya Sai Baba the most controversial article making 300+ edits in a matter of 15 days - adding only negative content based on unreliable sources.

Do you have Wikipedia:COI with the subject of the article Sathya Sai Baba?. Any reason why you were trying to defame this well known public figure and wiped out a good old template

Radiantenergy (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between banned user "wikisunn" and "radiantenergy"

"radiantenergy", may I ask if you were involved in editing this article before? Since you seem so passionate about the topic, and seem very familiar with wiki editing as well as previous arbitration committee decisions - I presume you certainly are not new to wikipedia or this article. May I ask if you have been involved in editing this article before - as an IP perhaps? Were you involved in edits/discussions on the topic? If you are new to wikipedia - could you explain your familiarity with wikipedia - as evidenced by your initial edit summaries? If not, could you kindly clarify why you previously refrained from editing this particular article - despite your apparent passionate interest in the topic? White adept (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On top of this talk page I see: "The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages."

I request "radiantenergy" to kindly clarify why I see a great deal of overlap in subjects of interest, edit patterns etc. between Wikisunn's edits and his. For instance - the articles both have 'contributed' to center around: Sathya Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. I see a similar pattern in initial edit summaries - especially user page creation. The nature of the contributions are also strikingly similar in several cases. For instance:

Your edit(Edit summary:Books on and by Swami Vivekananda ) : [4]

Wikisunn’s edit(Edit Summary: Added Books on and by Swami vivekananda) : [5]

Among other similarities I find both of you requesting arbitration help from the same admin[6][7]

Also, the role you play here now is very similar to the role that was played by "wikisunn"...

Just pointing out a few similarities. You wouldn't, by any chance, be the banned user wikisunn.. would you? I would like to let you know that while you may keep multiple accounts - if you are using one to circumvent an arbitration committe decision, or with one acting as a sock of the other, your edits here would be in violation of wiki policies. Please allow me to clarify that I am not accusing you of violating WP:SOCK - and am hoping you would be able to explain the similarities. White adept (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

White adept - This time you have gone too far. Its pathetic that you are trying so desperately to frame me with a banned user because I am questioning your disruption to the article and your absence from an arbitration enforcement case?

You are now resorting to cheap tactics of trying to desperately frame me with a banned user. Just beacause I said I contributed to article like Vivekananda or RamaKrishna Paramahamsa does not make me a socket puppet of anybody. I have also now contributed to other articles like Robert Frost, Mango etc. Are you going to try and frame me with other banned editors if any from these articles? Your argument is like saying User:White_adept is User:Andries's socket puppet because both edited the Sathya Sai Baba article adding the same banned material like Robert Priddy.

I have already explained who I am. There is even a section about me in this talk page. I am not anybody Socket Puppet. I have no idea who this User:WikiSunn is. I have seen his name in the second arbitration discussions. I have nothing to do with this banned editor User:Wikisunn. Stop resorting to such cheap tactics and getting away with what you did.

Radiantenergy (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry . And please answer the concerns I raised. White adept (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:White_Adept - If you continue this harassment and incivility calling me as some banned user inspite of my detailed explanations. I will open up a case of incivility and harassment on you in wikipedia. This has gone too far and has to stop. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any accusation against you - I find even other editors pointing out that 'prima facea' evidence suggests sock activity. Dont you think it would be a whole lot better if you could just calmly answer the concerns raised and have things clarified for once and for all? In your history of just a couple of months am the third editor to raise this concern. Anyway I did not mean any offense - and you obviously have the complete freedom to address and clear up the issues raised or to just ignore it. White adept (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• The reason why I was questioned twice before was because some users assumed that I was new to wikipedia looking at my history. They had questions about how I was familiar moving around wikipedia being a new user. I had already addressed those questions to their satisfaction.
• As I said before I have been contributing to a bunch of articles since 2007. I will update my userpage and add all of those contributions when I was unregistered user so that I won't be confused with some banned users.
• Another question that's raised is about my knowledge of sources related to this article. I bet it was n't easy task. I had spent a couple of weeks in January 2009 reading every line of the mediation discussions which was pointed out by User:Andrioes in this talk page and also the 1st and 2nd arbitration case. There are n't too many sources which are being discussed. The same controversial sources which were discussed from 2006 in BostonMA discussions is still being discussed. After reading these discussions I also added them in the talk page to bring everybody's attention to all those earlier rules and discussions.
• I think I have explained myself very well. What I will not tolerate is being wrongly accused as some banned user or some body's socket puppet. I will not remain quiet listening to such wrong accusations. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriately sourced material deleted

• I have deleted material sourced to the "Findings" website as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Remedies.
• Please review the 2006 and 2007 arbitration findings (principles, findings of fact and remedies) and do not reintroduce material that contravenes the arbitration remedies currently in force for this article. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Final_decision, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Final_decision.
• If there is further material in the article that directly contravenes the arbcom restrictions currently in force, please delete it or amend it to the extent it can be sourced appropriately.
• If my removal is in error, please advise here or on my talk page. Jayen466 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you are now getting involved in this article - Can you please give your feedback to the proposals here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Sathya_Sai_Baba_-_Breaches_in_the_new_template_.2F_current_version_rewritten_by_User:White_Adept_and_your_feedback. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't meaningfully comment about whether it would be better to go back to an old version or not. I don't know the article well enough.

Having the pictures of the dead in this BLP seems indefensible. It might have been defensible if Sai Baba had been held criminally responsible for their deaths. This not being so, I'd say these pictures would perhaps be appropriate in a subarticle on the killings, but not in this BLP. Jayen466 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This picture which you are referring is directly sourced to banned Robert Priddy and Basava Premananda and his book. Basava Premananda and his book were discussed in detail during the mediation discussion by BostonMA and was never accepted as a reliable source. Here is the mediation link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Indian_Skeptic_as_a_Reputable_Source. This picture violates WP:BLP rules. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Pictures do not have to be sourced to reputable sources. Andries (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these snapshots of the crime scene have been shown in the BBC documentary "Secret Swami." And according to many analysts sai baba and his organization could be directly involved in the murder as well as the ensuing cover up. Remember the killings were in his quarters and in his own bedroom. White adept (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you see, "could be directly involved" is not the same as "were proven to have been directly involved". We can use these pictures in the article on the assassination attempt and the controversy it caused.

Many armed assailants of prominent people have been shot. Wikipedia does not show pictures of their dead bodies in the BLPs of those they tried to attack, nor would any reputable encyclopedia. Jayen466 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your answers.

I see that I, Robert Priddy, am referred to above here by RadiantEnergy as being 'banned'. This wrong impression I want to correct. I understand that what is banned is (only) links to my websites on the Sathya Sai Baba page. In my apostasy I wrote about my experiences, and I hold that these are still entirely truly represented in every single respect in my pages. I have also provided massive documentation of many of my assertions, scans of documents and much more. I recommend my websites to anyone interested in learning about the activity of the Sathya Sai Baba cult and those like it. Wikipedian administrators should be aware how they propagate misinformation, exercise censorship and induce mind control through 'teachings'. They exclude all critics and they work through proxies (and sock-puppets?) to remove all information against them from any place they can should go to my Sathya Sai Baba web pages at [8] and my blog at [9] -- ProEdits (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austerlitz -- 88.75.84.223 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version

Andries and Radiantenergy, are you still in favour of reverting to the earlier December 2007 version? I am beginning to think I could be persuaded to support that as a first step. The video clips that were introduced earlier this year could be reintegrated after such a revert, if editors agree that they are appropriately sourced and add value (I think they quite possibly do). Jayen466 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still in favor of reverting to an earlier good template. Both December 2007 and Jan 5th 2009 are good templates which are more reliably sourced compared to the currrent article with lot of controversial material and wikipedia:Libel information. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely against it - This article contains over 20 k of sourced info - from sources such as The BBC, The Times , The Guardian etc - which the previous almost puerile version did not. They absolutely are not libel but what is central to the person's notability. Reverting to cover up all this well sourced information with specious arguments would amount to plain vandalism. I don't think User:Andries would be in support of covering up all these info, nor do I think the contributor User:Spidern would be. White adept (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against this current article being written as Wikepedia:Libel. Nobody is trying to cover up anything. I would like to remind everybody that this is an encyclopedia and this article is about Biography of Living Person.

• We are not trying to file a charge sheet on Sathya Sai Baba. The new template / current article looks like one to me.
• The previous article also had quoted from BBC and Guardian but the criticism was balanced and right now its not in this current article.
• The whole point of second arbitration was to warn editors about using poor negative material and also to improve the article with positive content. The new template has only added the same weak unreliable sources and more negative unreliable sources which were already dismissed as unreliable in BostonMA 2006 mediation discussion.
• The current article still has lot of POV views presenting only a WP:Undue criticism on Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Libel information.
• There is no teaching section? Positive sections like 'Response to Criticism has been removed'.
• Undue criticism is given more weightage based on a few minority sources and view. There are more than 5000 books on Sathya Sai Baba but the article does not reflect any positive aspects in Sathya Sai Baba's life.
• The well known public figure Sathya Sai Baba is presented like a criminal who has commited crime based on conspiracy theories from Basava Premananda though these theories were never proved and also Basava Premananda was never accepted as a reliable source.
• The improvement effort done during the past few days have been reverted. The article is again back heavily relying on the same unreliable sources such as "Findings" and other Wikipedia:Libel information.

I still think reverting to the well sourced good old template is the only solution. There are too many controversial issues with this current article heavily emphasizing on WP:UNDUE criticism and using unreliable sources and Wikipedia:Libel information. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy wrote "Undue criticism is given more weightage based on a few minority sources and view. There are more than 5000 books on Sathya Sai Baba but the article does not reflect any positive aspects in Sathya Sai Baba's life."

Radiantenergy may be right that the article suffers from undue weight but some of his arguments that I copied in italics hereabove are flawed.

1. There are many reputable sources that voice (sometimes trenchant) criticism of SSB. These are not minority views.

2. Yes, there are many books about SSB, but they are mostly by devotees. I read many of them and they generally cannot be used for this article because they suffer from reliability problems and extreme bias. Writings by devotees cannot be considered as forming a majority view, because they cannot be considered as belonging to an informed majority that tries to be fair. (As an analogy, I guess there are a postive books by Nazis about Hitler but we do not use them for the article about Hitler)

Andries (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

In this edit, White adept (talk · contribs) effectively undid over an hour and a half of editing with an edit summary of "The Indian Express" is to India what The Times is in London - it is not "waekly sourced". Cutting central and relevant commentary from BBC, Times etc down to a line serves absolutely no purpose." While this may justify one or two reversions, it does not counter 17 edits. I'd like to ask that you please you not undo a slew of general improvements to the article without arguing the merits of your reversions individually. It is impossible to constructively improve the article if editors revert each other without due justification to their reversions. Otherwise, edits in this manner may be considered disruptive or tendentious. ←Spidern→ 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A very well-justified revert

Spidern, the very well sourced material you blanked out - with no apparent reason - is what I took several painstaking hours to contribute. When you give no reason for blanking out such well sourced material and then you turn around and place the blame on me for not allowing it to be blanked - it is hard for me to appreciate. Not only did your edits end up blanking material from The Hindu, The Indian Express, Lawrence Babb, etc., you also ended up blanking out paragraphs of info from The BBC etc - "trimming" them down to single-line petty misrepresentations of the original source. All with specious edit summaries. Doesn't that border on vandalism? Review your edits here: [10] White adept (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I explain my edits as summarization of reliable sources in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. I realize it took time to find relevant quotes and place them in the article, but we are not an indiscriminate hub of quotes; instead we summarize secondary sources to provide a neutral commentary. Frankly, I can understand concerns raised here about undue weight on the article because it makes excessive use of quotes, something which stands in the way of neutrality. We cannot give undue weight to individual quotes. Please argue the merits of your reversions on the basis of individual edits, otherwise we will endlessly revert and nothing will get done. ←Spidern→ 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you review the definition of vandalism. Vandalism is intentional harm done to an article, an attempt to degrade the quality of an article. If one assumes good faith, only blatantly harmful edits are to be considered vandalism. What you call "petty misrepresentations" are an attempt to make the article more concise and not give undue weight to individual sources. Overburdening the reader with direct quotes compromises neutrality. Please carefully parse the vandalism policy in relation to bold edits. ←Spidern→ 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern,, I repeat , you are essentially blanking content. [Review your own edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=275325161&oldid=275318803]. How many parapgraphs have you deleted. In some cases replaced with single line watered down misrepresentations? Several paragraphs of central content. We are writing an article here - not a collection disconnected sentence "summaries" most of which are your personal interpretations and interpolations of the perspective of the original source. People need, background, information and content for the article to be of any use to them. Secondly you have deleted paragraphs such as the one sourced from The Indian Express. The 3RR doesn't apply to obviously vandalistic edits. i can point out specific instances where you grossly misrepresent the source - but am hoping you will go through your edit for yourself and understand what is wrong with it. White adept (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, you're at 5RR now. By reverting every single edit I made to the page (which included adding a new source and information), we have reached the unfortunate stage of impeding progress to the article. ←Spidern→ 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are blanking out critical commentary in the name of sumamrizing. Nobody is interested in your personal interpretations or summarries here! People read the article for information- to understand the perspective of respectable sources - not to read distortions of these sources. Am shocked by how you distorted The Times article "Suicide Sex and The Guru" . You have apparently used this section from The Times article:

"Sai Baba's teachings, however, are a collection of banal truisms and platitudes. The most famous utterances he has made in a six decade-long career as a living god are "Help ever, hurt never" and "Love all, serve all". Few are likely to argue with such a simplistic and universal moral code. He broadens his appeal further by allowing devotees to continue practising their own religion while paying homage to him."

as source for your words:" Sai Baba has said that his followers do not need to give up their original religion.[27] His followers view his teachings as syncretic (uniting all religions). Some famous sayings of his are, "Help ever, hurt never" and "Love all, serve all"."

As if these are famous sayings attributed to this person? How much mre can you distort? The Times article said his teachings are platitudes like "..." and the most famous saying made by him are just petty platitudes like ".."

Again I repeat - the reader is looking for information - find good sources - contribute - not blank out information. White adept (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note. If you find anything violating WP:SELF or sources that have been identified as Self published by the arbcom please let me know. I myself will fix and replace with better sources. White adept (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that user:Spidern goes too far in summarizing and condensing. And I disagree with the edit of user:Spidern of removing scholarly references (Kent & Babb) and leaving only the journalistic references (The Times). Remember that these were the sources that were recommended by the arbcom. Andries (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall removing any academic sources. Can you provide diffs of me doing this? ←Spidern→ 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Babb in the 'teachings' section - for instance. There are few academic sources in the article and this one, I noticed, was removed in your edits. Am not sure if Andries is referring to the same.

White adept (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please provide a diff and I'll be glad to discuss reasoning behind the edit. ←Spidern→ 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to review all of Spidern's edits but will say that I share Spidern's BLP concerns, and that I have no confidence at all that the general tendency of the edits made by White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) serve the interest of creating an NPOV article. They feel more like anti-Sai Baba activism. This is not what Wikipedia is about, as the prior arbcom cases made clear.

Andries, do you still feel we should revert to an earlier version of the article, or do you now think it would be better to work with what there is? What is your feeling about the way the article is going? Jayen466 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I am not engaged in activism - but if what reputable sources - BBC or Times - come across sounding "anti-baba" we can't just water it down or cover it up- can we? If am engaged in any activism it is only against distortion or cover up this material - if you look at the history of the article you will notice to what extent it has affected objectivity of the article and that is why I take strong stance against anything that hinders objectivity or distorts objective info. Remember that what is "neutral" is what is objective ( the standard for measure being Reliable Sources - not what is made to sound 'so-so'. Regarding the murders section( if that is the BLP concern you are referring to above) - how about splitting it into a new article 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam or something and having a stub here? That way we needn't blank any info and BLP considerations can be effectively addressed. Can you go ahead start the page - it would be great if you could find further info and good sources on the subject. I think the topic certainly satisfies WP:N.

Again, I think what matters here is not anti or pro edits but staying true to what reliable sources like Times or BBC or reliable scholarly sources tell us. White adept (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

White adept, the main problem with the article right now is undue weight, mostly due to selective direct quoting. It is for that reason that we have some editors advocating reversion to an earlier version. If we do not summarize the quotes to provide a succinct, neutral commentary on the subject, we will ultimately fail in increasing the quality of the article. I suggest that you re-examine the mass reversions you made and at least try to argue on a per-edit basis. ←Spidern→ 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand direct quoting could be creating a problem - not WP:UNDUE - but more having to do with presentation. What we need to do is properly paraphrase - in sections where there is excessive quoting - taking care to keep the info. In other cases where information is best conveyed through a quote I don't think there are major issues in keeping the quote as such.

A succinct sentence that completely fails to convey what the source has said is of no use. Further, readers new to the topic need background, information and data to appreciate something being said. I wonder if we would be able to do that through "succinct" summaries. This is the major issue I see with your recent edits.

If you are arguing we are giving too much room for the allegations - I think these allegations, being absolutely central to the person's notability in International Media, is not something we can just sideline. Of course we could further expand the teachings section, etc with scholarly content - and attempt to strike a balance thus.

White adept (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayan, I see you have made some major changes to the murders section. The content you changed was sourced to this BBC documentary. You commentary doesnot support what the documentary says. Relevant sections of the BBC documentary can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

White adept (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Should excessive quoting be paraphrased and trimmed?

Template:RFCreli Does the article suffer from undue weight issues? What can be done about it?

Note that the article version that Spidern is asking for feedback on is this one, not the present one. Jayen466 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved users

Comment White adept (talk · contribs) classified my bold edits as "vandalism", "page blanking", "petty misrepresentation", and even "sneaky vandalism". He initially performed five reversions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). While every attempt was made to justify my edits as summarization and paraphrasing, he continued to perform mass reverts (6, 7, 8) representing a number of edits which he didn't agree with, describing them in one edit summary as "intentional distortion". BLPN threads were opened by myself [11] and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) [12], which have yet not received a response. What should be done about the state of the article? ←Spidern→ 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spidern that we have gross problems of undue weight in this article. For example, the "murders/killings in the ashram" section, in which White adept (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added graphic images of the corpses of the four knife men killed by police, devotes one paragraph to the incontrovertible facts, and seven to conspiracy theories, mostly by avowed opponents of the subject. The events were controversial, and that controversy must be covered, but the amount of room given to sheer guesswork and supposition by the subject's opponents is indefensible. In addition, numerous other conspiracy theories floated at the time are ignored – that the Sangh Parivar was involved, that the killings were the result of a power struggle between two factions of Sai Baba's followers that took place behind Sai Baba's back, etc. (see p. 98 here). People who spoke up for Sai Baba, like the Indian prime minister at the time, or just the reamining facts, are not given anywhere near the same room. It is just striking that the controversy section, extensively quoting the subject's opponents, makes up more than two-thirds of the overall article. I'll say this again: these are gross violations of NPOV and BLP. Jayen466 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved users

Comment by uninvolved user RegentsPark

I was aware that the Sai Baba is a controversial figure (though I had only a vague idea of what the controversies are) and that an article on the baba would not be complete if it excluded these controversies. However, I must admit to being surprised at the extent to which the article incorporates material on these controversies considering our fairly tight BLP norms. Generally speaking, the requirement that negative or controversial material be included in an article only if it is well sourced also includes the commonsense provision that we should still exercise care that undue weight is not given to this material, especially if the material relies on opinions and other non-factual statements. The previous version of the article (this one) has clearly crossed the line and some, but even the present version (this one) is problematic. The section entitled "Killings in the ashram", for example, is written more as an investigative reporting piece rather than an encyclopedic piece because it pieces together opinions and adds extraneous information designed to discredit (e.g., the 'passing the necklace' reference), and leaves the reader with the conclusion that the baba's role in the incident was more than just his being an innocent target. I would much prefer to see that entire section rewritten along the following lines: A paragraph (or paragraphs) that outline the proveable facts of the incident followed by a paragraph that summarizes the controversy (the CBI report and well-sourced opinions). The entire section should be about half what its current size. (Also, it is generally more neutral to use phrases such as 'according to the police' rather than 'the police claimed'.) --Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Re the "Killings in the Ashram" section, there has also been support at the BLP noticeboard for shortening this section in this article and housing the present material in a separate article: BLP noticeboard thread Jayen466 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Material cited to the "Findings" deleted, again

I have once more deleted the material sourced directly to the "Findings" document, as per the 2006 and 2007 arbcom decision:

"Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him."

I have reverted to Spidern's summarised version which seems closer to WP:DUE. Jayen466 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was reintroduced by mistake( un-intentionally ) when restoring other very well sourced material. I had pointed out this was likely and requested that it be pointed out. See my post above. Also a source can be used for identification of its perspective - especially a notable one like this. Anyways am pulling out of this. Leaving this article, I just want to request editors to please not intentionally cover up or water down material from Reliable Sources such as The Times or The BBC as has been done here:[13] - personally I believe there is an ethical aspect to it too. When we cover it up for this person we are as much responsible for the harm inflicted by him to society as well as innocent, unsuspecting people as he himself is. For, if it weren't for people covering up this person's misdeeds - this would have ended much long before. There are possible sock puppets functioning here - a sock of an old banned editor - see what I pointed out in a previous post above. Analysts and critics like Priddy have had a hate and wretched lies propaganda unleashed against them by the cult. Even editors who apparently wanted well sourced criticism to be objectively covered on these pages have not been spared. They have been subject to threats, blackmail and slander ( proof of which am willing to share with admins.) Anyways I just don't think me trying to contribute here is worth my time.

White adept (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppeteers...?

I'm beginning to see a distinct sock puppet pattern here. Is it time to semi-protect the page against new editors? Bhimaji (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)