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?

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

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

references

)

The use of the word "Controversial" in the first line

hey, whats going on? the introductory descriptive sentence of Sathya Sai Baba is the topic for this talk. It seems problematic as it now stands. An alternative introductory sentence of, " ...religious and spiritual figure from the South of India" seems a more accessable and neutral statement, especially in the very beginning of the article. To be so ready to make such statements as "controversial" (as this is the disputed term/description) is not the way to start an article. Allow the reader the space to determine what to believe. Although it was stated that this term existed since the pages creation, it does seem that the train of thought to lead to this word's employment is clearly shown in the previous entry... "He is a "miracle worker" and self-proclaimed messiah..." A view is already there about Sathya Sai Baba and 'controversy' only expounds this view. (in order to simplify, why not write that?) It doesnt fairly and neutrally describe. It doesnt produce a welcoming wikipedia page but rather seems to build an arguement. Why not save that term for the criticisms section? and allow the reader to use their own ability to determine what is pertanent.

Onopearls has asked for this be dicussed via the following emails...

A. You cannot just remove the word "controversial" because you disagree with it. A large portion of the sources say that he is controversial, so please do not remove it. If you disagree, take it to the talk page before removing a word that has been on the page since it was created. Thanks, Onopearls ...

B. I can't make it anymore clear. He is a "miracle worker" and self-proclaimed messiah, that alone makes him a controversial figure. Do not remove controversial again without taking it to the talk page first please. Thanks, Onopearls

Aside from this, what is the final criteria then for making a change?

Thanks, look forward to hearing from contributers...J929 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the word "controversial", and it does not make a fair and impartial article. "He is a "miracle worker" and self-proclaimed messiah, that alone makes him a controversial figure.". Jesus Christ also did miracles and was a self-proclaimed messiah, so is it appropriate to call him controversial? By the way, I am not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba

You are the only editor to have ever disputed that he is a controversial figure. The majority of the sources on the page itself say that he is a controversial figure. The word itself is not a POV word, it is simply stating that Sathya Sai Baba has controversies that surround him. Said controversies are then addressed within the article. I have not seen you offer any real reason to remove the word, other than that you disagree with it.

" An alternative introductory sentence of, '...religious and spiritual figure from the South of India' seems a more accessable and neutral statement, especially in the very beginning of the article." I disagree. It is not nearly as informative as the current sentence, nor is that any more neutral than the one that is already there, which also explains more about what he is.

And for the record, those are not emails, they are messages I left on your talk page after you continued to remove information without discussion. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here are some select references from the page that affirm that he is a controversial figure. [1][2][3][4]Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey!,I think it is standard when writing from a neutral place, i.e. from a place with no agenda and without propoganda, to open with a clear unbiased statement as to who/what you are discussing. Unless you are writing a thesis based on your own observation or analysis. Controversy is a word of opinion... it is not a word of fact. It seems that's what J929 is bringing to light here...

Streamclear (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversial" was added on March 15th, 2004 "Controversial" added march 14, 2004 by user:Andries who is now banned from editing the article for showing extreme POV against the subject. So I think the use of that term is questionable.Sbs108 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When I look at other controversial fiqures in Wikipedia, I don't see that type of entry or the use of the word "controversial" to describe them in the opening. It does start the article off in a kind of dark tone. In itself it seems to be pushing a POV. For some he is controversial and others he is not. J929 has point when he says its up to the readers to decide if he is controversial. Should wikipedia make that judgement? Most every public fiqure is controversial in some way. George Bush, Martin Luther King, Obama,Rasputin, Jesus, Che, Nostradamus, etc etc etc. There are 1000's of controversial people and topics, should they all say "controversial" in the beginning of the article.User:Sbs108|Sbs108]] (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can it be denied that he isn't a controversial figure? It isnt a POV word when it is being used solely in a descriptive manner. The fact that he is controversial is mentioned in the opening paragraph, and elaborated on later in the article. I have yet to see the problem here, especially after it has already been in the article for over five years. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than accept something because of the the way it has been for the past five years, maybe change it to reflect a more integral way of writing? Something you may want to note is that your response started with a question as to opinion...

Streamclear (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the source references...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm ,,, "He believes that it is his duty to dispel the "curse of gullibility blighting his country in the form of myth and superstition", and replace it instead with the "gospel of pure, scientific understanding". " that is quite a mission. maybe much like Sai Baba's mission (see discourse 4 July 1968) "Since 1976, he has waged a bitter war against Sai Baba" that is definately biased. Bitter war? he is obviously has an agenda and the artcicle is only reporting on that. and ultimately one person's view, ie Mr Premanand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/04/voluntarysector.india ---read the back story, that is neutral... one organization stops association with Sai Baba, how many medical schools and educational institutions are associated with him? How many cities have declared Walk for Values day? (Toronto, Regina, Calgary, various Australian cities...)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/india/news/article_1362538.php/Thousands_disapp ointed_as_Sai_Babas_moon_miracle_fails ... (monsters and critics... a very welcome sort of page and with alot of creditbilty?) why is this a source, did Jesus not say the Kingdom of God is at Hand? do you see it floating by your computer screen? what is your interpretation? if it is not correct, why write an article only to voice one's disappointment which in turn, is based on one's own failed expectations.... and to even quote this as a source is a farce, there were clouds covering the moon! what is the controversial source in this article?!?

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20001204/cover5.shtml#shadow .. the only real article to base the word controversial. have you read indian newspapers for extended periods of time. read anything other than headlines? there are alot of less than clear articles published. do you rmemeber the monkey man of mumbai some years ago? di dyou read the stuff that was printed then? you may want to if you are going to stae your sources the indian times. yet the mentioned stories unconfirmed as to date. unltimately one source seems to hold water, yet have you read any of the 36 volumes of discourse, and vahainis (books written by Sai Baba himself) that may sway your "opinion" that Sathya Sai Baba is controversial. does he say anything controversial in those books? what controversy do you find in them?

"it is simply stating that Sathya Sai Baba has controversies that surround him." why not then use this statement? ...after a brief desricpiton to allow his name to breathe.

"You are the only editor..." who cares? Nikola Tesla at an early age made improvements to a local watering system. is this a show of numbers? a statement to make me 'the only'?

"And for the record, those are not emails, they are messages I left on your talk page after you continued to remove information without discussion. Thanks" and for the record it seems by your opinion i have no life, having read mounds of redundant userboxes i was at last informed of this "fact".

have i clarified the idea that "controversial" is an opionated word. not to mention the author of it has been since banned...

"I disagree." is not a substitute for an objective neutral page, this is not an arguement or legal document. your opinion is not more valid than mine. 'controversy' is not an objective term especially to the way you are refering it someone as they are presented in the media, not on direct sources, writings, video discourses...

Henece it is appropriate to remove "controversial" from the first sentence. the provided sources do not validate its presence. and an opinion that it should be there (despite its media based origins--and subtle connotations of as the online dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Controversy) states "contention, strife, or argument") is a ridiculous assertion...

...and orator should be gotten rid of as well. his discourses do not conform to, as wikipedia states "one who pleads or argues for a cause". to what cause are you refering to? is this a different and more valid cause than that of Mr Premanand.

J929 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"especially after it has already been in the article for over five years" !! the entire basis for its inclusion and ridgity to change is based on an opinion and ! "especially after it has already been in the article for over five years"? cigarettes used to be published as rich in iron and good for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhvHB62ph8), and people didnt know houses should not be built near power lines... why should this change/topic be brought a talk page? to whom am i adressing? and ultimately, who will "allow" the change?

J929 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the BBC is a biased source? That's ridiculous. And I take offense to your assertion that "by my opinion you have no life", as I never implied that in any way, shape, form or fashion. And I never said my opinion was more valid than anyone else's, I was simply stating that I disagreed with what you said. But it would seem that you would want your opinion to have more value than mine. At least, that is what I am picking up on from your reply. And on the "its been in the article for five years", I was simply pointing out that the world controversial has been in the opening section for five years, and in that time, only you have decided that it doesn't belong. Can you offer any Wikipedia policies that are being violated, or can you only offer your opinion on the matter? Because, as previously stated, no one opinion on the topic matters more than anyone else's. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your sources were explored and debunked. only one really remained. (can you really validate writing Sathya Sai Baba is "controversial" because the moon was not visible on a certain day and people were upset?)

"Can you offer any Wikipedia policies that are being violated,"

you have no sources to validate "controversial". yet no changes are allowed. where does opinion enter? why is a poorly sourced word allowed to lay so heavy in an opening statement. is this inconjunction with wikipedia policy?

J929 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC called SSB a controversial figure. You cannot find a more reliable source. You, however, cannot find a policy that is being violated. So how about if you offer a source that says that Sathya Sai Baba is not controversial. I mean, I've offered sources that say that he is, and no policies are being violated, so I would like for you to make the same effort to provide me and the other editors with similar material. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No where in the article does it state "SSB a controversial figure". although it does state, "The previous prime minister of India, Mr Atal Vajpayee, once issued a letter on his official notepaper calling the attacks on Sai Baba "wild, reckless and concocted." " The Prime Minister of Indian defended Sai Baba, does this count as the "not controversial" term you requested? or is it the exact wording you are looking for? in that the term "controversial" does not appear anywhere in the BBC article, is it then an opinion? i have yet to see the BBC calling Sathya Sai Baba controversial...

consider... The BBC is a corporation. It had a monopoly on the communications of the entire British empire from 1936 until someitme in the 1980's. the BBC report(s)ed peoples views, should they take a stance they then become biased. yet do you still maintain the BBC said, "SSB a controversial figure"? is it out of place to infer what "the BBC says" if there is no direct quote? and more so to place that inferance in a neutral article?

are you asking for positive information when you ask for sources? if the article is over 5 years old and you ahve been on wikipedia for 2+ years then who actually sourced the quote?

to say, "look" for "not" adjectives is both falicious and counter productive ? shoud you have me shine your "not" excistant brown shoes? is this "not" phenomenon your stand on the topic? i would request this talk not follow that path, but you are free choose.

J929 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am having a very difficult time understanding what you are attempting to say. From what i can tell from your writing, you A) Want the word controversial removed from the opening paragraph, B) can offer no reason to remove it, other than your personal opinion that Sathya Sai Baba is not controversial, C) Have a hard time with English. Let me try to respond to some of your replies.

No where in the article does it state "SSB a controversial figure" On this you are correct. However, it does go on to elaborate on the controversies that surround him, which just happen to be what make him controversial.

it does state, "The previous prime minister of India, Mr Atal Vajpayee, once issued a letter on his official notepaper calling the attacks on Sai Baba "wild, reckless and concocted." " The Prime Minister of Indian defended Sai Baba, does this count as the "not controversial" term you requested? Where did the Prime Minister defend Sathya Sai Baba and say that he is not a controversial figure? Can you provide a web address?

are you asking for positive information when you ask for sources? if the article is over 5 years old and you ahve been on wikipedia for 2+ years then who actually sourced the quote? I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Are you saying something about the length of time I have been editing Wikipedia? Or something else? Yes, the Sathya Sai Baba article is well over 5 years old, and yes I have been editing Wikipedia for over 2 years. And what quote are you referring to?

to say, "look" for "not" adjectives is both falicious and counter productive? shoud you have me shine your "not" excistant brown shoes? is this "not" phenomenon your stand on the topic? i would request this talk not follow that path, but you are free choose. Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to say. I take it you are saying something about "not". Perhaps my asking you to provide a source that plainly says that Sathya Sai Baba is not a controversial man? I don't think that was an argument, it was a simple request for you to put forth the same amount of effort that I have in providing you reliable sources that you have went as far as to say are biased.

The BBC elaborates on what exactly makes Sathya Sai Baba controversial, while the Times, another well known reliable source, says "Saytha Sai Baba, who has an estimated 30 million followers worldwide, is possibly India's most controversial holy man". I believe that is a source that I offered that calls Sathya Sai Baba controversial. Is there anything that I missed? Or am I completely off in interpreting your words? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning, J929 wrote:

"Allow the reader the space to determine what to believe."

I agree! That's right! That's why the word "controversial" is an appropriate word to use. It indicates to the reader that there are different opinions, and that the reader of the article will have to balance these to determine what to believe. J929 wrote in an edit summary,

"took out 'controversial', he himself is not controversial. peoples views of him seem to be. add if you want 'controversy' surrounds him' but he himself is not"

This indicates that J929 and I do not share the same definition of the word 'controversial.' S/he seems to imply that, for a person to be controversial, they must themselves intentionally do controversial things. That is not true at all. You can be controversial even if you do not wish to be. To me, the statements

"Controversy surrounds Sai Baba"

and

"Sai Baba is a controversial..."

are equivalent statements. The claim that a person is controversial does not mean there is anything bad about them. I think that a reference to the controversy around Sai Baba is absolutely critical in the article lede. It is important that readers understand this, regardless of your view. If a reader does not realize the controversy, then they may skim to either a positive or a negative sounding section of the article, and be left with the impression that that section is clearly agreed upon as accurate. I think that we can all agree that very little of this article should be seen by a reader to be unquestionably true. J929, if you still believe that controversial must be removed, please clarify what definition of controversial you are using. Your edit summary leads me to believe that your working definition of the word is quite different from the usage I am familiar with. Bhimaji (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Bhimaji and I finally agree on something :) I do not believe that controversial is a biased word, as J929 implies. It is simply a word that is describing that there are controversies that surround SSB. There is no POV behind having it in the lead, and in fact, it is absolutely crucial that the reader have a full view of the person from the opening paragraph, lest they draw a POV either for or against based on us removing words that we do not like in the section. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

dear Bhimaji, there is a big difference in how to phrase Sai Bab's association with "controversy" to say he IS something... is like saying Energy is (=) Mass X the constant of the universe squared to say Sai Baba is Surround by controversy is like saying Energy is surrounded by Mass X the constant of the universe squared there is a difference in those terms... as far as defintion of controversy 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument. Sathya Sai Baba may be surrounded by the debated opinions of other/controversy but he himself is not, as he is consistant in what he has said.

J929 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Constant of the universe? Do you mean the speed of light in a vacuum? Trying to use math equations or physics as analogies for English language definitions is a terrible idea. Science is frequently quite different in its usage of the English language. For example, in materials science, a material can be strong but not tough. Your analogy is simply not applicable.

Regarding your definition, the word we are using is "controversial", not "controversy."

Merriam Webster gives these definitions:

1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious

Definition one includes "arousing controversy." Sai Baba definitely arouses controversy.

"Sathya Sai Baba may be surrounded by the debated opinions of other/controversy but he himself is not, as he is consistant in what he has said."

Are you trying to say that he is not controversial because he is consistent in what he has said? That makes no sense. Nothing in the definition of the word controversial implies "not consistent in what they say."

Let me say this again: we are not arguing about whether Sai Baba is controversial. We are arguing about the meaning of the statement "<person> is controversial."

The language that J929 wants and the language that J929 rejects both *mean the same thing*. The phrasing that J929 wants is more verbose and doesn't fit in the article cleanly. Bhimaji (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

dear onopearls,

there is nothing to understand. In your previous statement the BBc said Sathya Sai Baba was controversial, now you say they didnt say that and that "you (meaning j929) were correct", but where are you failing to comprehend when your last statemnet has been completely debunked?

you seem to have a short attention span as my quote of the former prime minister of India came from the BBC article itself! how well do you know these article you keep (mis)-quoting ?(see previous statement, "SSB a controversial figure" ) BBC provided a clear and concise quote so why question it, when you said "You cannot find a more reliable source"...

please elaborate on your new stance.

you ask about a knowledge of english yet you do not understand simple logic. (which forms a basis for the structure of language) if you want i can state my points in point form... an entire universe can exist in "not" and in fact does on the Quantum field. so why the attack "C) Have a hard time with English." is this ettiquette? is this admin editorial way of maintaining good faith and politeness.... do you address wikipedia editors with sentences starting "so...." if not, then why do you write this to me? (see last entry)

i have disproven your last BBC statement. agreed?

"what quote are you refering to?", (see your last post) why do ask the same question over and over again? what has been the initial basis of this talk? why did you ask for this talk if you keep asking to what am i refering the quotes to? do you actually care about improving this article?

what relatedness have you found in what i have said, so that this talk can grow?

J929 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

dear bhijami,

i provided a definition of controversy. "disputation" as provided by your definition, would be based on opposing sides? if yes then Sai Baba is not controversial in that he has not went back on the things he has said. the opposing sides about its interpretation form a controversy. of which he is not. in reply to physics, use logic as a basis not science. the scientific equation is constructed in logic (mathematic) form... that is what i was refering to with "is" and "surround"... another example... you have a bear around you you are (plural of is) a bear

do we agree?

J929 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

J929:

Controversial is an adjective. Bear is a noun. Your analogy again fails.

Confusing adjectives and nouns is a pretty basic grammatical mistake. Perhaps you should consider doing some reading up on English language grammar before continuing this argument? Bhimaji (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of sources for the word “controversial”, but it would be more informative to write what the major controversies are i.e. faking miracles thru sleight of hand and sexual abuse. December 4th 2000 India Today A god Accused/Test of Faith (various authors) “Controversy could well be Sai Baba's middle name.“ from http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20001204/cover5.shtml#shadow Andries (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

plenty of of sources for "educationalist" as well.... with the universities, medical colleges, and Sai schools all over the world. but is that the first word to describe Sathya Sai Baba. ... not to mention of having developed and educational system that has received praise in just about every city it has been introduced to... http://video.edmontonsun.com/archive/source/toronto-sun/sathya-sai-school/14379041001

A policy paper entitled 'Finding Common Ground' published by the Ontario Ministry of Education, states. 'Quality education includes the education of the heart as well as the head; it includes a focus on the whole person—the cognitive, affective and behavioural domains of learning. It means preparing students to be concerned citizens who have empathy and respect for people within their increasingly diverse communities. It means providing opportunities for students to understand deeply the importance of civic engagement and what it means to be a global citizen in an increasingly interdependent global community. An approach to teaching that is infused with character development is education at its best.' - Avis Glaze, 2006 http://media.radiosai.org/Journals/Vol_05/01JUN07/03-coverstory-final.htm

and the list goes on... if there are more sources to support Sathya Sai Baba being an educationalist (Educare, http://www.educare.org/ www.walkforvalues.com/Sathya_Sai_School.asp , ), why not use that term (with obviuosly more quotable and reliable sources ie. education systems, universities etc...)to describe Sathya Sai Baba. if you are going with number of sources, surely that would count to high numbers. Why then is controversial the first adjective? if its only there because of number of sources, then please number of educational sites to controversial sites. further more, sources based on corperate objectives ie. selling a story (as most major newpapers are) are less credible than the reportings of educational and gov't bodies that report on what holding up to educational standards.

the web site for the india today holds allegations, nowhere (again) does it use the word "controversial". "His allegations... " is clearly stated in the second sentence. an article reporting on allegations. (which furthers stresses that Sathya Sai Baba is not controversial in the same light of media based figures, ie Howard Stern) Your are then accepting allegations and holding a biased view. and in turn, the reason for this talk, controversy does not fairly describe Sathya Sai Baba. more being the first adjective.

How does "Sathya Sai Baba is an educationalist, South Indian guru etc..." definately more sources to support such a statement. and very imformantive...

give it some thought and make same constructive suggests as opposed to defending a word that has not been accurately sourced. onpearls, where is the site for the times' quote...

if you are basing all this on one actual quote, that is indeed biased.

there are plenty of other sources with more informative and accurate adjectives.

is it right to treat this artcile like a coverstory? it is wikipedia, a neutral source.

J929 (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

the fist line is not properly quoted. (there are no quotattions) (http://www.aresearchguide.com/5quoting.html) theres an irony of defending a word that is not properly quoted in the first place.

why then do say that removing "controversial" is opinion based, when the sentence is not even written, quoted and/or footnoted properly. ("Can you offer any Wikipedia policies that are being violated,") Bad writing, quoting, and footnoting are not the sign of a properly written work. if it is not properly written, then it is biased and violates wikipedia policy. (do you follow the train of thought?) further more, where is your stand then, onopearls that my request is opinion based? you have no valid argument to stand on.

please address this concern first!!

(and leave comments such as "I have not seen you offer any real reason to remove the word, other than that you disagree with it." and "can you only offer your opinion on the matter?" out.)

J929 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have read arguments from both the sides - For and Against using the word "Controversial" in the article. Both the sides have valid arguments. I don't see it going anywhere in terms of consensus rather the arguments are turning to become personal accusations.
• I would suggest that may be we should look for the middle ground. May be substitute with a word which conveys the same meaning but at the same time does not look opinion based to the other side.
• Right from the time Baba proclaimed himself as "Sai Baba". He has been the central theme of debates and discussions. People have debated Sathya Sai Baba's Claims, Proclamations and Miracles for several decades.
• May be we can replace the term "Controversial" with something which will be agreable to both the sides. Any suggestions are welcome!. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

a revision is most welcomed. initially i added "Sathya Sai Baba is a religious and spiritual figure from the South of India." i feel it is a staright forward simple introduction. if revised, may i suggest that it be followed then by another statement that allows the reader go deeper into the subject with out being bombarded. then allow for the mass conceptions, ie, Guru, miracle worker, educatonalist, etc... presented in a neutral, fair and informative way. properly footnoted and written.

J929 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy:

J929's arguments about the meaning of the word "controversial" are flawed. S/he does not know what the word controversial means. S/he frequently uses exceedingly uncommon English words, and has demonstrated a lack of understanding of English grammar. I vehemently object to rephrasing parts of this article to fit one editor's misunderstandings of English words.

Note that Onopearls also agrees with me: controversial does not mean bad things about Satha Sai Baba. Bhimaji (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that controversial should not be changed, especially since the only people that have a problem with it are relatively new editors that have only edited the Sai Baba article and talk page, which in itself is suspicious. I am also against changing information because an editor doesn't know proper english, and obviously is confused about the meaning of a word. I do not believe there is a word that can adequately replace controversial, nor do I believe there is one that is better suited than controversial. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the word at all in the lead, but I am not going to get in an edit war over it because I believe the article as it stands is a huge improvement from its former outlandish state.Sbs108 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, a correct defintion of the root of controversial was prodided, its root is controversy. what then do provide the conjugated definition

1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious"

as stated in the definiton you provided 'arousing controversy', controversy being defined as '1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument.' http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversy. Sai Baba is not first and foremost controversial. There is opinionated versions in the interpretation of events around him. that is all. i have disproven all the sources that onopearls has provided and shown that the word as it is right now, is not properly quoted annotated. have you read the last several entries , and onopearls lack of response to the rebuttles? what may i ask you is wrong with 'Sathay Sai Baba is a spiritual and religious figure.' in terms of english or grammer. does this adhere to 'exceedingly uncommon English words'

you are free to use "controversial" but it is not suited for the introductory adjective. it is also, like i ahve said, quoted/annontated properly. that being true, is based on an opinion and therefor biased and should be removed. it is a simple arguement. what part of it do you not understand? please address this.

J929 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

dear onopearls,

"I do agree that controversial should not be changed, especially since the only people that have a problem with it are relatively new editors". a question , what do you keep refering to numbers so much? ie, you are the only editor, relation to how long i have been editing, how many war ships the US should have "600 Ship Navy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onopearls) stick to the arguemnt not credentials. it says on your page you are 17 years old. have attended university? (academic experience) lived on your own or in a foreign country? (personal experience) volunteered? (altruistic experience) if not, then i question your ability to edit based on lack of any credible experience. did the original encyclopedia britannica have 17 year olds writing the articles? maybe its time to reflect on why you are 'editing'? if you love to write that is amazing, but please dont sit rigidly on a topic because wikipedia allows you to. almost anyone can sit at a computer and type. the beginning sentence is not annotated and therefor biased (based on opinion), and inturn should be deleted.

where is the call for "proper english" to realise this writing fact?

"that have only edited the Sai Baba article and talk page, which in itself is suspicious." i have disproven all of your arguments, of which none you have addressed directly. if the statement is not properly quoted and annontated then how can it included in a page , let alone the first word. what is suspicious to see it then being debated, as you have asked.

you have remained obstinate in this artcile. you said my proposed change was opinion based, i have shown via, lack on annotations that the word is not poperly placed. (without refering to the flimsy 'sources' you provided) so where then is the opinion in the matter? yet you have not addressed this, other than expressing the wonders of agreeing with bhijami. is it not an opinion to say, "which in itself is suspicious". take a look at the article itself and use that; not counting how many edits you have made to wikipedia articles, (3,200+ to be exact(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onopearls) ), as a basis for change.

why would an editor facinated by the Navy, an armed forces unit, and whose first quote in his wikipage is that of an Dr. Evil,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onopearls) have such an agenda to write/edit a page on a man who's mission is peace? have you ever been to his ashram? a center? a bhajan? dont sit behind a veil of being an editor when you have not addressed that all the sources you have provided are debunked and the intro sentence itself is not properly annotated (in fact, it is not annotated at all). please address this.

"Sathya Sai Baba is spiritual and religious figure from the South of India."

"proper english"?

"is confused about the meaning of a word." definition provided.

"nor do I believe there is one that is better suited than controversial." is an opinion.

adhering to a sentence/claim that is not properly annotated, is that good english.

if this entry seems personal, i'm addressing the views he has expressed of me, if onopearls chooses to address the topic at hand directly, ie. no annotations and/or poor sources to justify "controversial", then we can move forward. (and saying its been there five years is not in anyway a valid arguement)

please address the annotation topic.

J929 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC

I have been following these heated discussions in the last couple of days. I think its high time to stop all these personal attacks and accusations. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the beautiful thing about Wikipedia, any person, even a 17 year old, may edit it. Now, you addressed several topics in that statement, so I will gladly attempt to reply to each one independently.

a question , what do you keep refering to numbers so much? ie, you are the only editor, relation to how long i have been editing, how many war ships the US should have "600 Ship Navy." First off, what is on my userpage has absolutely no influence in the argument on this page, as I did not offer the information on that page (most of which are just userboxes that I thought were funny and/or interesting, and which do not necessarily reflect my views, wants, or needs) as evidence of anything on this page. Second, your ability to carry your argument from one part to another is incredibly flawed. "to how long i have been editing, how many war ships the US should have" the connection between the two is absent, so your argument from one section to another makes absolutely no sense.

it says on your page you are 17 years old. have attended university? (academic experience) Indeed I have. I have attended "university" for over a year now, as I am concurrently enrolled in both High School and a University in my hometown.

lived on your own or in a foreign country? (personal experience) I currently live alone, and have for over a year now, although how that would in any way influence my edits on Wikipedia is completely beyond me. Yes I have lived in a foreign country. I have lived in Canada (10-12), Mexico (13-15), and Belize (15 only, 7 months), Before returning to the United States.

volunteered? (altruistic experience) Of course I have volunteered at a local charity, among other things. Again, I do not see how that influences my edits, by there you go.

if not, then i question your ability to edit based on lack of any credible experience. Even if I had not done any of those things, I would find your lack of assuming good faith to be disheartening. I take it you have forgotten that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Each and every person in the world has just as much of a right to edit Wikipedia as you do. So to question my "ability to edit" based on lack of any "credible" experience is completely absurd.

did the original encyclopedia Britannica have 17 year olds writing the articles? Perhaps if they had, it might have been as great a project as Wikipedia is.

maybe its time to reflect on why you are 'editing'? if you love to write that is amazing, but please dont sit rigidly on a topic because wikipedia allows you to. I do enjoy writing, and I am very good at it. And I edit because of editors that would rather come onto Wikipedia and change an article to suit their needs instead of trying to reach a consensus on the subject. I edit to keep editors from coming onto Wikipedia and inserting "boob" to every sentence of the United States article. I edit because I believe in this project, because I believe in Wikipedia.

almost anyone can sit at a computer and type. the beginning sentence is not annotated and therefor biased (based on opinion), and inturn should be deleted. But you just admitted that it should be deleted because you believe that it is biased. You did not disprove my sources, you have your opinion as to why you disagreed with them. You are adamant on keeping this about facts and opinions, so there you go.

i have disproven all of your arguments, of which none you have addressed directly. You have disproven absolutely none of my arguments, you simply provided a twisted and incomprehensible logic for why you believe something should not be there, before you resorted to attempting to make me feel childish and stupid (which you failed miserably at, I might add) by addressing things on my userpage that have absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

if the statement is not properly quoted and annontated then how can it included in a page , let alone the first word. Are you really claiming that a single word must be "annotated"? No the debate at hand is that you believe that he is not controversial. You have offered no logical reason to remove "is a controversial figure", other than an argument entirely based on the fact that you disagree that he is controversial, and since a single word is apparently not cited, it must be removed!

what is suspicious to see it then being debated, as you have asked. You are the one that started the debate, after you removed it several times without discussion. I agree that it is suspicious to see this being debated, as we have spoke for three days, and added some 38 thousand bytes of information to this page, all over a single, 13 letter word. Perhaps suspicious isn't the best word, as ridiculous seems much more fitting.

you have remained obstinate in this artcile. you said my proposed change was opinion based, i have shown via, lack on annotations that the word is not poperly placed. (without refering to the flimsy 'sources' you provided) so where then is the opinion in the matter? I remain obstinate in this article because you have offered no real reason as to why the word should be removed, just why you believe it is "biased", an opinion, or not properly sourced. And this sentence that you wrote proves what Bhimaji, you do not speak English. "you said my proposed change was opinion based" I believe you are saying "you said my proposed change is based on my opinion" or something like that. Correct me if I am wrong. "i have shown via, lack on annotations that the word is not poperly placed" What? You have shown via what? And no, you have not shown that the word is not properly placed based on lack on annotations, as that doesn't make sense. The word could very well remain there, should someone move one of the sources (like the Times perhaps) to the end of the sentence as a reference.

yet you have not addressed this, other than expressing the wonders of agreeing with bhijami. is it not an opinion to say, "which in itself is suspicious". take a look at the article itself and use that; not counting how many edits you have made to wikipedia articles, (3,200+ to be exact(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onopearls) ), as a basis for change. I am once more confused as to what you are trying to say. I do not believe that you understand what I was saying there. I was not talking about the article, I was talking about you. You have made less than 100 edits to Wikipedia, so that would imply that you are relatively new. Yet you used the edit summary in almost all of your edits. This implies that you are a more experienced editor, and are using this new account to mask your identity. I was not calling anything about the article suspicious, I was calling your sudden appearance, and the fact that you have jumped onto this article, suspicious. I am not, nor have I ever, used the number of edits that one has made as a "basis for change", whatever that means. And yes, I have made over 3200 edits to Wikipedia. I am not entirely sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.

why would an editor facinated by the Navy, an armed forces unit, and whose first quote in his wikipage is that of an Dr. Evil, have such an agenda to write/edit a page on a man who's mission is peace? Excuse me? I take complete and absolute offense to your assertion that I have some sort of agenda in editing this page due to my "fascination" with the United States Navy and a movie character that is obviously satirical. I support the United States Navy. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. I am also fascinated with the Cold War. Does that make it wrong for me to edit the Sathya Sai Baba page? No. I am fascinated with the history of WWII, and with what the Nazi's did. Does that mean I shouldn't edit pages about Judaism? No it does not. What interests me is none of your business, and the fact that you are attempting to use it against me to further your agenda is disgusting.

have you ever been to his ashram? a center? a bhajan? dont sit behind a veil of being an editor when you have not addressed that all the sources you have provided are debunked and the intro sentence itself is not properly annotated (in fact, it is not annotated at all). please address this. No, I have never been to India. Nor have the majority of the people in the world. Are you saying that because of that, they are less entitled to edit this page? I'm very sorry to break it to you, but that is not how Wikipedia works. As I said before, any person is able to edit this and any other page on Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. No, the sources I provided were not "debunked", you said why you did not believe they were adequate, and you went so far as to say that the BBC is biased. You have went on and on over the fact that the intro paragraph ins't, in your opinion, properly "annotated". If you believe this, I would strongly suggest that instead of complaining on the talk page, you go out, find the sources, and cite the information yourself. Because should you do nothing, this entire discussion will have been full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

"is confused about the meaning of a word." definition provided. Yes, you may have offered a definition, but that in no way means that you understand what it means. You appear bent on trying to convey the fact that you can speak English, which you very well may be able to do, but you have yet to prove that you can comprehend English.

"nor do I believe there is one that is better suited than controversial." is an opinion. Yes it is. I never said that I was not offering my opinions, which is exactly what one does in a debate, which is what you called our little discussion. Perhaps once you start providing only facts with no opinion will I do the same.

if this entry seems personal, i'm addressing the views he has expressed of me, if onopearls chooses to address the topic at hand directly, ie. no annotations and/or poor sources to justify "controversial", then we can move forward. (and saying its been there five years is not in anyway a valid argument) Yes, this entry was incredibly personal. Yours was an attempt to draw some sort of emotional response from me, which you failed to do. I am personally disgusted and angered by the tactics you chose, as you called my edits into question based not on my intellect or how I edit, but by my age, and by information that you read on my user page (which you had no proof if any of it even remotely reflected my personal feelings). " i'm addressing the views he has expressed of me" No sir, you are not. You did not address my view of you, because I did not offer one. So your justification for this rude, insulting post is completely lost on me. I would very, very strongly suggest that you take a good hard look at WP:NPA before posting any sort of comment on Wikipedia again.

no annotations You are correct, there are no annotations. So why don't you do something about that instead of talking about it on the talk page? Go search for sources and put them in the article.

and/or poor sources to justify "controversial" You speak of me offering my opinion, well that is an opinion of yours. You say they are poor sources (the BBC and the Times), which is ludicrous. But that is your opinion on those sources, not a fact. I will not offer what I believe on the sources, as that too would be an opinion, and you are insisting on only facts. So here is a fact: The Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard has said time and time again that both the BBC and The Times are reliable sources. So I can say, with absolutely no opinion, that you are mistaken. Both of the sources I provided are considered reliable, meaning that according to Wikipedia, they are not biased, as you claimed, although they may not be the best sources in your opinion.

We may move forward once you are willing to stick to the topic at hand. You are the one that is offering your opinion on the matter, then attacking me when I do the same. This will be my last reply to you, as I do not have time for your childish antics, nor do I have the willpower to once more try to translate the gibberish that you spew onto this page. So you may have the last word. But I suggest you reflect on what I have said here today, as it will help you not only with your edits on this page, but with your edits as a whole on Wikipedia. Thank you, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

neutral means fact. when he was born, where, etc... does anyone have suggestions to make the first sentence neutral?

J929 (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the Wikipedia policy you think the lede violates? Bhimaji (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the relevant policy is Wikipedia:lead section and I believe policy means for this article that the controversy is at least mentioned, because the introduction/lead section should give a summary of the whole article. I prefer to describe the controversy instead of using the word "controversial" because the former is more informative. Andries (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any issue with the introduction. Its perfectly fine the way it is. I don't think we need to spent any more time arguing about removing the word "Controversy" from the introduction. Since there was no clear consensus we won't be able to rephrase it or remove it.
• As per the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style it is important to keep the introduction neutral especially in 'Biographies of Living Persons'. That's the way it is right now. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have great problems with excerpts from the interview in the introduction: it is not a third party source about SSB and it is not a summary of the article but a selective quote, so a violation of WP:NPOV Andries (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another week wasted, both here and on the article itself. Ombudswiki (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of this largely sterile debate about “controversial”, why are contributors not willing to apply themselves to more practical considerations in order to improve this flawed article? (Excerpted from my comments in last week’s Sandbox Section 37):

A. The reputable Sathya Sai Baba literature is available, some of it online and much of it from Sathya Sai Baba Centres. Interesting items have been identified in these Discussion "pages" and in the Sathya Sai Baba Bibliographies. If contributors fail to do the necessary background work about a guru who has been publicly active for about 65 years,the Wikipedia article about him will always be less than satisfactory, and will continue to be subject to unfair or irrelevant comment by those who know a lot about arcane Wikipedia procedures (or enjoy arguing ad infinitum) but not enough about the subject itself.

B: Why not consider the following quotation from the article, perhaps in relation to controversies: "1. He is considered by his followers to be an avatar and the reincarnation of the saint Sai Baba of Shirdi.[8]" If you read his Discourses, especially the first 10 Volumes, you will see that this devotee belief is based on Sathya Sai Baba's own very strong repeated claims to Divinity, omnipotence, omniscience, being the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi, being the Avatar of the Age, the Father of Jesus Christ, etc.

C. You cannot write a convincing encyclopedia article about Sathya Sai Baba without adequate reference to the following fundamental biographical contribution: Padmanaban, R. et al , Love is My Form. Vol. 1 The Advent (1926-1950). Prasanthi Nilayam, Sai Towers, 2000. [Often referred to as LIMF]

Admittedly, the 600-page large format illustrated book follows Kasturi’s simplistic hagiography, like so many other writers, but it does introduce new elements. A belated study of LIMF should result in an improved first two sections of this article and a reconsideration of other aspects of Sathya Sai Baba’s first 26 years of life. Ombudswiki (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to order the very expensive book unsuccessfully some years ago. Will try again. Please in the meantime add important quotes from the book here. Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources author: Padmanaban, R. Love is my form, Vol. 1, The Advent (1926-1950), Bangalore: Sai Towers Publishing, 2000. Andries (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The word controversial

There could be a very easy way to solve the discussion over the first line of the article: by not calling Sathya Sai Baba himself controversial (I would object, too; it seems as if he is seeking controversy himself) but stating that there have been controversial reactions to him, or that there have been controversies around him or that there has been a lot of controversy in the reactions to him, his actions or his person, or something along that line.--Satrughna (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not start this discussion again. But again, I would say that there are different meanings to the word controversial. It does not necessarily mean that one is "seeking controversy", it also means marked by or capable of arousing controversy. What you propose "controversial reactions to him" makes no sense to me. How exactly to you believe that the reactions to what he may or may not have done were controversial? No, what Sai Baba has been accused of (there is a a rather long list of accusations that I won't list at this time) is exactly what makes him a controversial figure. Michael Jackson is also considered a controversial figure, not because he has necessarily done anything wrong, but because he, like SSB, was accused of them. Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a very long discussion before. There was no clear consensus among the editors. I think the Introduction is quite neutral and well-written. It is better to leave the Introduction as it is with out getting into another round of arguments and counter-arguments. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey whats going on? my apologies in not responding sooner, i was in a remote part of Alberta for a period of time.

i understand there is more important things to deal with on the article, but i think carefully and slowly, a neutral intro. paragraph can be created. and then be elaborated on in the body of the page. if done properly, this lead to greater clarity in the artcile as a whole , for all sources, views etc...

wiki laws (neutral view) "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."' controversial is an opinion unless explained in detail, stating there is a controversy is more of a fact. "based on allegations" is still more fact based. this is the train of thought i'm refering to, with respect to removing "controversial". "there is controversy" is more of a fact than saying "sai baba (himself) is controversial." i feel wikipedia law agrees with me...

for biographies of living persons... "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." the first sentence does emit an encylclopeiac tone nor is it conservative. if the word is sourced from the phrase, "his middle name should be controversial", that is definately not conservative but based, although sourced, on an opinion. the view expressed did not convey a fact but his/her opinion.

it is, therfore, problematic. " Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source" Then it is possible to start the paper saying Sathya Sai Baba is God. (if one secondary source has printed someones opinion/interpretation of events.) but it becomes problematic to have such sweeping statements so early in the page.

i think the first sentence with his birthdate and place should be closed before continuing with roles and media views etc... at least that way. the mundane fact is seperated form the opinion based views, whatever they may be...(it is not the things he has done, it is the things he has been accused of.)

to andrea....i dont think the controversy should be elaborated on in the first paragraph as if you elaborate on everything he has done (or accused of...), then you will have to include schools, hospitals, service projects etc etc etc.... i think a brief adjective that will act as a reference for the topic to be later elaborated on in the page is best. after a fact based introductory first sentence.

J929 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Love is My Form, Volume 1 (2000). A Glimpse

One of the major revelations in Love is My Form, supported by school register photostats, was that Sathya Narayana Raju did not declare himself to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba in 1940 (aged nearly 14), as he and his Organisation have claimed for over 60 years, but in 1943 (presumably aged 16-plus if the 1926 birth date is correct). The chronology established by the team of local researchers unfolds thus:

Sathya Narayana probably spent the school years 1935-1936 to1939 or 1940 in the Elementary School in Puttaparthi (see pp. 40-41). The 1940-1941 school year was spent, not on his Mission as the legend would have us believe, but at distant Kamalapuram Elementary School where his elder brother was teaching. On pp. 68-69 we are shown a Transfer Certificate from Kamalapuram School to Bukkapatnam, which indicates attendance in the First Form in Kamalapuram, from 11 June 1940 to 22 April 1941. He joined Bukkapatnam in Jukt 1941 and left on 6 April 1942 (see p.69 and pp. 128-9).

There follows a gap of many months until Sathya resurfaces in Uravakonda (140 km northwest of Puttaparthi) at his elder brother's house in early 1943 and finally enrols in the Secondary School on 1 July 1943 (pp. 132-3), after the reported traumatic "scorpion" incident. He left that school a few months later, presumably following his Declaration of Mission. A summary of his school career is given on pp.128-9 of LIMF.

Neither Sathya Sai Baba nor the Sathya Sai Organisation have ever commented on this glaring biographical error.

There is much more relevant information for those who care to read the book, which only deals with the first 24 years of Sathya Sai Baba’s life. As I have pointed out previously, the following 5 or 6 planned volumes in the LIMF biographical series were abruptly cancelled a year or so after the publication of this first volume.

What should particularly interest readers of these pages (and Wikipedia admins even more), is the astonishing total neglect of such a basic and reputable source of information (these references and much more). Detailed references to LIMF have been available on the Internet for at least 7 years and yet no one involved with the Wikipedia article on Sathya Sai Baba has followed them up.

So maybe it is time to stop wasting time on futile (and sometimes solipsistic?) argument over trivia, and incessant partisan edit wars. Surely what is sorely needed, as I have indicated several times previously, is for editors to get down to some serious study of this and other neglected sources of published information on Sathya Sai Baba. If this is not done, there can be no hope of producing a reliable and balanced account of the career, controversial claims (yes, controversial) and achievements of Sathya Sai Baba in this encyclopedia. Ombudswiki (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In view of the inexplicable lack of interest by contributors (unless they are busy belatedly reading this essential volume), I have added further comments in Bibliography 2 and in the article itself about this neglected source of information.

Love is My Form. A Biographical Series on Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Volume 1. The Advent (1926-1950), ed. R.Padmanaban, Bangalore, Sai Towers Publishing, 2000. ISBN 81-86822-77-1. [The projected series of 7 or more volumes, which was abandoned without explanation in 2001, had already been assigned the ISBN number 81-86822-76-3.] Page ix of the Introduction to the 600-page, large format volume offers this promise for "millennia to come".]

Love Is My Form Series Publication Schedule I. The Advent, 1926 - 1950 In Preparation Projected II. 1951 - 1960 VII. 2001 - 2010 III. 1961 - 1970 VIII. IV. 1971 - 1980 IX. V. 1981 - 1990 X. VI. 1991 - 2000 The text of Love Is My Form weaves together recorded history, interviews, of contemporaries, narrations of landmark events and personal experiences with an album of photographs, letters and other authenticated documents to reveal the most thrilling and enchanting of life stories—that of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. The series will serve future generations for millennia to come." Ombudswiki (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed corrections

The article cites the 1976 Blitz interview as supporting the statement: "He also claimed that Sai Baba of Shirdi was an incarnation of Shiva and that his future reincarnation, Prema Sai Baba, would be a reincarnation of Shakti. He publicly repeated this claim in 1976."

I read the interview and in it SSB only claims that he is the second of three Sai avatars, with some details about the specific spiritual purposes of each avatar, but not specific details about which Hindu gods are/were/will be incarnated.

I propose that the second sentence be changed to: "He publicly repeated the claim that he is the second of three incarnations in 1976."

The next paragraph cites material from the Gurupournima Day reference but gets the Hindu gods reversed. The reference (as of 2009-07-17) states: "After the ritual was over, they were so pleased that they conferred even more boons on the sage. Shiva said that they would take human form and be born in the Bharadwaja lineage, thrice: Shiva alone as Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva and Shakthi together at Puttaparthy as Sathya Sai Baba, and Shakthi alone as Prema Sai, later."

TheGoblin (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Knowing my sources, you are absolutely correct--Satrughna (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.

J929 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

hey, i made the Siva/Sakthi incarnation change as it is a very blatant mix up and felt it was better to be done sooner than later. i also agree with the proposed first change.

J929 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Move sentence to new section

hi, the sentence "While devotees claim that the movement is not missionary, some analysts assert that it is cultish in nature.[36]" appears in Beliefs and practices of followers. It seems some what ill-developed, inconsistant with the other sentences and, generally, to be out of place.
I'd like to suggest moving it to Criticism and controversy as that seems to be the section it can be elaborated on. ie. what is meant by "cultish", who are the analysts?...
Hopefully this will allow for more coherence.

J929 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is too vague. I don't think it should be in the article as this view is not supported by any reliable source. Sbs108 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi J929,

Here's are the reasons why I wouldn't like it to be moved under the Criticism Section:

• 1)This will not fit under Criticism because this discussion is about the Sathya Sai Movement not exactly a 'Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba'. Please remember 'Biography Of Living Persons' [WP:BLP] places great emphasis on getting the article right.
• 2) Secondly this label of 'cult' on the Movement is a very minor view and not a view by majority of analysts or reputed sources. As per wikipedia rules we cannot project minor views as major views. I don't see why we need to project this minor view of 'cult' on the 'Sathya Sai Movement' in the article in the first place?

Radiantenergy (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, would you propose to remove the sentence completely?
as of yesterday it was in the middle of a paragraph (about bhajans) that had nothing to do with 'cultish' activities.
ie. is it out of place enough to warrant its removal?
personally i dont understand what is meant by 'cultish'. there are some positive definitions of 'cult' ie fervor for a cause etc... when the St. Christopher movement in Christianity began, it was considered a cult.
i agree with Sbs108, it does seem vague and poorly sourced and should be removed.

Thanks for your time!

J929 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

J929, In the Sathya Sai Movement article there is a section titled "Characterizations and Classifications' - which deals with the different analyst views about the Movement so we don't have to repeat it here in the main article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Raising Of Funds

• The first paragraph in this section which discusses the finances of the Sathya Sai Organisation is sourced to an article by M. Seetha Shailaj (29 November 2000). "Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can.". I was n't sure if this was a reliable source. I had asked the question in the Wikipedia Reliable Source Notice board. The verdict was that the M. Seetha Shailaj article is weakly sourced and its unreliable for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Discussion link from Reliable source notice board about article by M.Seetha Shailaj: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_this_a_reliable_source.3F

• As per this discussion I will be removing the 1st paragraph sourced to M. Seetha Shailaj from the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of this section at all. It is not well sourced nor is there any proof whatsoever with regards to misuse of funds. It seems blatantly slanderous. I think this whole section should be removed given the well sourced information on the enormous amount of humanitarian work done.Sbs108 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The quoted source for the one paragraph dates from 2001, this is further reason to remove it as it reads like its happening in the present.Sbs108 (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues with this Section - 'Raising Of Funds':

[WP:BLP] lays great emphasis on 'Avoiding gossip, Presenting the material as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject" - for claims of Material about living persons. The "Raising Of Funds' is written more like a gossip column. It is placed under the wrong section "Criticism' - though there is no Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba in that section.

• The 2001 article starts with "Questions are being asked about the fundraising techniques employed by his followers" - This is not exactly a 'Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba' - It is in the wrong section in the first place.
• The Times aticle only reported that Clarissa willed large part of her husbands estate to the Trust its been contested by her children. The same article also says its going to be a while for the money to reach the trust. Again with this example there is no indication of mishandling of funds by the Trust - this reads more as a gossip about Clarissa's will.
• There is a random POV statement by Joseph Edamuruku not related to the above example - which says "We do not believe that its spent on hospitals.." with no supporting proofs of what he claims.

This section is badly written trying to imply strong POV views to the readers with no supporting references which validates those claims. It is also under the wrong section - 'Criticism' - though not being a Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. I don't think this is 'getting the article' right. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to the above [WP:BLP] concerns I suggest we have 2 options.

• Either get rid of that section from the article due to above concerns. There is no substantial reliable claims about any money mishandling by the trust. I don't see how this section is useful to the article. (OR)
• Remove the gossips and rewrite in more neutral tone and move it to the 'Sathya Sai Baba Movement' article. In that case we need to be careful not to project this minor view as a major view shared by majority of people.

At the Current state its not fit to be under the 'Criticism' section in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

the trust was partly set up to seperate any financial dealings (and transactions) from Sai Baba. as an organization, the trust is responsible for finances, donations, etc...

J929 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Toning down the strong criticism based on unproved allegations and fixing BLP issues

The "Criticism and Controversy" section is very badly written with sharp tones of criticism though none of the allegations were proved and many were based on hearsay. It should also be noted that it is written as if it is happening in present although these were reported around 2001 - 2004. So far there has been only 1 trial related to these allegations. Even in that trial Sathya Sai Baba was not found to have done any wrong doings.

Alaya Rahm, BBC and Sathya Sai Baba Case:

• The first paragraph is all about the Alaya Rahm allegations / interviews to BBC 'Secret Swami' and other documentaries "Seduced" accusing Sathya Sai Baba of sexual abuse allegations. Its extensively covered in this first paragraph.
• When Alaya Rahm filed his case in 2006 in Superior Court of California. The trial did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba rather Alaya Rahm was found to have used illegal drugs during his allegation interviews to BBC and Others. Alaya Rahm self dimissed his case when Sathya Sai Baba Society brought a strong witness.
• The article is still using the old BBC and other documentary allegations which were never proved as true in the trial. The trial rather found Alaya Rahm had used illegal Drugs and also passed the verdict he cannot file a case on Sathya Sai Baba again in US or in India. Pretty much the trial brought the BBC and other documentaries claims into question. In the reliable source notice board it was agreed that using these old documentary allegations by BBC and others based on Alaya Rahm's allegation is a BLP violation and can be removed as we have the court documents and secondary source article 'Daily Pioneer' to prove the trial and the verdict.

Here's the reliable source noticeboard discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.

As per these above discussion I will removing the first paragraph written primarly based on Alaya Rahm allegations to old BBC, CBC and Seduced documentaries. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all the case was self-dismissed by Alaya Rahm and second of all the reputability of the Daily Pioneer can not be compared to that of the BBC and third the disagreeing sources should be used to describe the controversy, not to tone it down or omit it. Fourth, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not on primary sources, like court documents. Andries (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Andries, "The Alaya Rahm trial and BBC allegations' were discussed in detail for more than a week in the reliable source notice board. I would recommend you to read the whole discussion. Also I would like to point that the discussions and conclusions were made by very experienced wikipedians from outside this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy: Did you take this to the BLP noticeboard as they suggested? Multiple people said that that BLP was more appropriate than RS.

It is *very* common for legal cases to be resolved in ways that do not involve a determination of the facts. This is why it was mentioned multiple times that court documents are highly discouraged as sources. Bhimaji (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, the discussion is very long and is not arranged by date. Totally 5 of us participated in this discussion. Only 1 editor recommended taking it to BLP notice board. (User:Abecedare). RegentsPark who also initially suggested that changed later and disagreed and questioned reliability of BBC. 3 outside editors out of 4 recommended to get rid of the BLP violations in the article based on old BBC allegations. The reason being that the following trial did not find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba and also made the earlier old BBC and other documentary Alaya Rahm allegations questionable. In the end there was great emphasis on fixing these BLP issues and getting the article right and getting rid of BBC to fix the BLP violations. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is one of BLP policy rather than source reliability. If this were not a biography, the BBC article would unquestionably stay. I strongly oppose removal based on a discussion in the wrong forum. Direct use of court rulings is *highly* discouraged because they are very easy to mis-interpret. Please post your question on the BLP noticeboard and post a link to it here. Bhimaji (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Bhimaji. Its a BLP isssue. BLP concerns on using BBC as a source was the core part of the discussion. Please read the full discussion. I am stating important discussion comments below as its a long discussion and its easy to miss the below BLP discussions.
• User: Jehochman stated that "Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source". - He asked if the trial was covered in a secondary source. Daily Pioneer article on Sathya Sai Baba covering the trial was proposed as a secondary source for the trial. It was agreed by 3 editors that Daily Pioneer is a reliable sourced for the trial as we have the original Court documents from Superior Court website on Alaya Rahm case.
• RegentPark comments about BBC - "I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".
• Priyanath BLP comments: Priyanath also agreed to removing BBC material due to BLP concerns. He stated that "IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".
• I would like to remind that this is just not a discussion by editors involved in this article. If it were then we may have doubts about WP:COI. But these were from very experienced neutral wikipedians from outside the article. BBC BLP issues were discussed in detail and they arrived at those conclusions. I don't see the need to take it to another forum as the BBC BLP issues were already dealt in detail in this discussion. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The verdict did not make any conclusions about the veracity of the allegations because the case was self-dismisse: there can be 1000 of reasons why the case is self-dismissed. Andries (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am reinstating the removed paragraph referring to the BBC documentary. The ground for removing that paragraph - as given by Radiant Energy - is invalid, mainly since the fact that the trial of Goldstein was withdrawn has no significance as regards the allegations made on the BBC documentary, which still stand and have never been challenged in court. The BBC film has never been challenged in court and is a trusted media source and so its documentary aired world-wide is highly relevant source to cite. It presents, along with other evidence about claimed miracles, the recorded views of the most senior figure in the International Sathya Sai Organization, Dr. Michael Goldstein and *it details the Rahm family's involvement and allegations, which Goldstein is filmed refusing to investigate. The former Home Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, V.P. Nair - who was involved in investigations after the 1993 murders in in Sathya Sai Baba's quarters in his Prashanthi Nilayam ashram - is interviewed and makes a very important statement concerning the murder cover-up. It also definitively confirms that the US State Department issued a warning which specifically referred to visiting Sathya Sai Baba, which has not been legally challenged. It further documents the views of one of the major supporters of Sathya Sai Baba, Isaac Tigrett - who donated money for the Sathya Sai Super-speciality Hospital - including his opinion that the sexual abuses did or probably did take place. 'The Secret Swami' was also widely reviewed most positively in the UK press as recorded here [www.saibaba-x.org.uk/15/UKPress_Secret_Swami.html].

Radiant Energy wrote "as we have the court documents". (To which ‘we’ does this refer? It is only so far shown that the former editor SSS108, who linked to his own pages as those of Gerald Joe Moreno, has the court documents). However, the documents deposited by parties contained nothing but allegations which were never discussed in court, since the case was withdrawn on technical grounds, which has been made clear by the joint statement of the Rahm family here [www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/articles/alayarahm.htm]. The main reason for withdrawal of the case was that there was no Sathya Sai Organization registered in the USA, only a bookshop and a charitable society, which could not be held responsible for what Alaya Rahm testified that he was subjected to by Sathya Sai Baba. The court documents have no weight as objective evidence in that there was no court decision whatever. Besides, a member of the public who visited the Clerk of Court on my behalf could not obtain the specific Lewis Kreydick testimony or certain other court documents since they were not released publicly, being made available only privately to the lawyers and contending parties. I have explained this on Wiki talk pages in 2006 when I removed a very long excerpt by SSS108 from a deposition by an opponent of Alaya Rahm, a subjective document which in no way invalidated Alaya Rahm’s allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 was unable to provide any proof that he had - as he claimed - bought the specific court records from the Court, no receipt was forthcoming.

Radiant Energy makes a tendentious point of the BBC documentary being 'old', but historical materials are entirely relevant on Wikipedia, however old. Further Radiant Energy makes an entirely false and libelous claim, namely, "the trial rather found Alaya Rahm had used illegal Drugs". There was no such 'findings', nor any 'trial' - the case was dropped before any trial was convened. ProEdits (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Secret Swami and Dale Beyerstein: Other Important Evidence

The BBC documentary Secret Swami offers other important evidence about Sathya Sai Baba as well as sexual allegations, for example some of the alleged miracles, most notably the Shiva Lingam fiasco of 2004, captured on film. Relevant references to the easily available documentary should therefore be immediately reinstated in this article.

Much relevant evidence about some of the alleged miracles in Professor Dale Beyerstein’s important 1992 analysis of Sathya Sai Baba has been rejected several times by Wikipedians working on this article. I believe and have stated in these Discussion pages that this is an unfair judgement, and one which suits partisan attitudes. Therefore, for the sake of Beyerstein’s academic reputation, and in the name of fairness, I offer for consideration another contribution by him in a “reputable” Encyclopedia. The references and quotations (i.e. evidence) offered there can now be checked by Wikipedia contributors for possible use in this still sadly deficient article.

Dale Beyerstein, ‘Sai Baba’, in Gordon Stein (ed.), The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, New York, Prometheus Books, pp. 653-657.

Both the Foreword (by Carl Sagan) and the Introduction to this work set it apart as a product of sceptical academic analysis, but that is not a valid reason for Wikipedians to reject it. “Almost every entry represents an assessment by an expert with skeptical credentials.” (Sagan, p. xii) “This is the first scientifically based encyclopedia to deal with the paranormal. ... The word here means anything that is put forth as an explanation of the natural world using as a part of that explanation elements that appear to violate what has already been offered and accepted as a scientific explanation of the given phenomenon.” (Stein, xxi)

“To keep the tone of this book both scientific and balanced I have tried to use scientists as authors of most of the articles, including those who have publicly supported and discredited research on the paranormal. Other contributors have included science writers, historians, philosophers and theologians.” (xxii)

Beyerstein’s 3,000 word essay pulls no punches. After a very succinct biographical introduction of 150 words, in which he notes the claim of Sathya Narayana Raju to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba and Jesus Christ “as well as other avatars (reincarnations of God)”, Beyerstein sums up Sathya Sai Baba’s ecumenical theology as a “unification of Hindu, Muslim and Christian faiths under his own religion.” Apart from the inadvertent exclusion of Judaism (due in part to Sathya Sai Baba’s own documented ignorance about Judaism), this seems to be a reasonable description of SSB’s self-appointed Mission.

The author attributes a modest six million followers to Sathya Sai Baba, including many wealthy Indians and prominent politicians and many devotees in North America and Europe “who make annual pilgrimages to his headquarters in Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba runs a school, hospital and other facilities.” (p. 653)

The remaining 95% of the article offers a judicious selection of evidence taken from the compelling research presented in Beyerstein’s original 1992 study (which some Wikipedians have deemed non-reputable): Sai Baba’s Miracles. An Overview. Some of the important subjects covered in that book and in its easily available Internet |format are:

The evidence against the controversial claims of Sathya Sai Baba’s ‘resurrection’ of Ramakrishna and Walter Cowan (including evidence from Professor Erlendur Haraldsson’s book).

Healings.

Claimed omniscience (with documented counter-evidence).

Materialisations and very interesting graphic evidence from videotapes [recently supplemented by many visual offerings on YouTube and www.exbaba.com].

The highly controversial alleged materialisation of fragments of the ‘real’ Cross of Jesus to produce a tiny crucifix for prominent devotee John Hislop in the early 1970s.

Criticisms by Basava Premanand.

The materialisation of Shiva lingams as an annual ashram spectacle.

Ombudswiki (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)