Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm Trial

Why is this source important to the Sathya Sai Baba article?

  • Earlier RS discussion had a detailed discussion about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' covered in the Daily Pioneer article unlike the new RS discussion.
  • In the 'Alaya Rahm' 2006 trial which was filed in the 'Superior Court of California' did n't find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba as alleged by 'Alaya Rahm' in the earlier 2004 BBC documentary.
  • As per the 2006 'Alaya Rahm' trial - Alaya Rahm cannot file another law suit on Sathya Sai Baba in US or in India.
  • Earlier RS discussion clearly mentioned that removing the Pioneer article while leaving the BBC allegations will result in BLP violation to the article subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.
  • Comments from Priyanath in the RS discussion: To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP.
The other source referred above is the 'Daily Pioneer' article covering the 'Alaya Rahm trial' whose allegations were main part of the BBC documentary. :::
  • This BLP issue should be fixed in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as per the earlier RS recommendation.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you include on the talk page a list of the facts from the Daily Pioneer article that you feel are important? There are definitely things from the Pioneer that I think belong in the article if they are true. However, I don't trust the Pioneer, so I would like to look for another source that covers them. If we can find alternate sources for the facts you want to include, then we can all be happy. As a beginning, I think it is important that people reading the article know that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of abuse. Bhimaji (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bhimaji, We have a couple of options to resolve this issue with out getting into edit wars.
  • Either we remove the 'BBC material which covered the 'Alaya Rahm allegations' completely as concluded by the earlier RS board discussion. Then there will be no need to include the part of the 'Daily Pioneer referencing the 'Alaya Rahm case' if there is no mention of 'Alaya Rahm' in the article.
  • The second solution is to mention the fact that there was indeed a real trial by Alaya Rahm in the 'Superior Court of California' in 2006 and the verdict that 'Alaya Rahm cannot file another case on Sathya Sai Baba for the same sexual abuse charges either in US or in India and also that they did n't find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba. This could be supported by the Superior Court of California website covering the Alaya Rahm case as mentioned in the earlier RS discussion. Also the journal article mentioned in media.radiosai.org could be used as further reference to this case. The media.radiosai.org is official website and has already been used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
  • The other important refutations from 'The Daily Pioneer' conclusions such as 'However neither Sathya Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sathya Sai Baba or his organisations' could be rephrased and supported again from the same article from media.radiosai.org.
  • The basic idea is to include the facts. The 'Alaya Rahm trial' has to be mentioned if the BBC reference with 'Alaya Rahm allegations' is left in the article. Removing only the refutations from the Daily Pioneer but leaving the BBC allegations will be a BLP violation as mentioned in the earlier RS discussion.
Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. There has been a ridiculous amount of discussion over this one piece, when it is obviously an opinion piece that doesn't present the facts in a neutral manner, but in the views of the writer (not that a news piece won't present the facts in a completely neutral way, but it wouldn't have the opinion of the writer in it.) Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 02:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense. We don't do our own interpretations of primary sources (see WP:NOR) and we don't use crappy secondary sources to get material into the article when good secondary sources are not available (see WP:V and WP:RS). Citing court documents directly regarding living people has consistently been rejected in every case I've seen where it has ever been proposed. And an editorial column in an obscure Indian newspaper (which is what this is, regardless of its specific labeling) is nowhere close to as reliable a source as the BBC. See WP:UNDUE — articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The fact is that the accusations were published by a reliable source (the BBC), while claims about dismissal of the case, claims that nothing was proven, claims that the victim was himself guilty of various offenses, etc., were never published in a reliable source but only in a fringe editorial in a Third World country. *** Crotalus *** 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Use of terms like "fringe" and "third world" don't seem to be proper here. It is a reliable source with regards to the subject of the article, an Indian source, the subject's own country so it can't be labeled "obscure". This is an arrogant western viewpoint. Indians do not think of themselves as "third World" Stop comparing sources. I agree some of the statements in the Pioneer article can be taken out but the part about the case withdrawal should be in the article as well as the fact that Sai Baba has never been charged much less convicted of any crime and as of today there is nothing pending anywhere. These can not be considerd "opinions."Sbs108 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a compromise since the source was originally deemed reliable and there still is a discussion, We leave in these two facts, Alaya Rahm Case was self-dismissed and Sai Baba has never been charged nor convicted of any crime. Simple. Serious allegations were levelled at Sai Baba. No one anywhere has any proof of anything. Because the witch hunt in western media by a few elements blasted the internet with baseless unproven allegations doesn't mean an Indian newspaper can't counter these with facts and then be called "third world" and "fringe" etc.Sbs108 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sbs108. We need to come to a compromise. There is no point in edit warring.
Was there a real trial in 2006 by 'Alaya Rahm' on Sathya Sai Baba Society as claimed in the 'Daily Pioneer'? Yes. There is enough evidence to prove there was a real trial.
  • We have the 20006 Alaya Rahm case from the 'Superior Court of California' website. Alaya Rahm case link from Superior Court of California website: https://ocapps.occourts.org/CivilPubv2/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=&source=case_src_dtl#top_page. Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.
  • Daily Pioneer which was declared as reliable in earlier RS is reliably sourced for stating that there was a case by 'Alaya Rahm' and that it was self dismissed. We have the link from the Superior Court website as evidence. At the same time as mentioned by Sbs108 it is enough to mention just the facts from the 'Daily Pioneer' such as 'Alaya Rahm's self dismissed his case and that Sathya Sai Baba was not found to have done any wrong doings in this case. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all, there was never any consensus among uninvolved users that the Daily Pioneer editorial was reliable. Evidence was posted that Sandhya Jain has made obvious errors in regards to the U.S. legal system, and therefore cannot be said to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in this area, as required by our verifiability policy. And the link you cited does not in any way support Jain's claims. The case is described as "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" — there is no mention of any sexual offense. So this cannot be used to support the statements that are being repeatedly re-inserted into the article. Either find a credible source or leave it out. *** Crotalus *** 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Civil Cases can be filed only under existing categories depending on whether it is a problem with a Landlord or breach of contract or under Personal Injury \ Property Damage \ Others. This case was filed under the 'Property Damage and Others'. What's the problem in that? What's important is that there is a link from the 'Superior Court' website which is a real evidence to the fact that there was a case by Alaya Rahm.
  • Unlike the new RS discussion in the Old RS there was clear consensus between RegentsPark and Priyanath that the 'Daily Pioneer' was reliably sourced.
  • There is no point in edit-warring there has to be a consensus we will mention only important facts and leave out what's not neccessary to the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, again?

Well, I was hoping that maybe after the blocks that editors received last time that there would be more caution about embarking on another revert war, but what a surprise it's happening again. I will state it again, and for probably the last time. I am posting this here to save posting it to a whole bunch of talk pages independently. Please make sure you have established a consensus here on the talk page that the majority of people agree on BEFORE you edit the article. How difficult is that to understand? If there is a disputed consensus then clarify it. If you read 3RR you will note that it doesn't have to get to 3 edits. Revert warring is revert warring and everyone has had way too many warnings already. Please stop. The next step is likely going to be topic bans, both to keep warring editors apart and to permit other editors to continue collegial editing without constant disruption. This article will not repeatedly be protected as means to prevent infighting, at some point those editors that cannot work together will most likely be prevented from interacting, or from editing this article (and any related articles) at all. If you want to be able to contribute, you need to be able to conduct yourselves within community guidelines. Mfield (Oi!) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about new user / account

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hedmstr1

  • As per his / her contributions this is new user who has been in wikipedia for less than a month. But he does n't seem like a new user based on his writing and recent contributions. I am becoming more and more suspicious of this account based on his recent edits.
  • Inspite of being a new user he has been going on a rampage of personal attacks on the 3 active editors from the 'Sathya Sai Baba article' here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=318223993&oldid=318040846 and also in his earlier talk page discussions / comments.
  • Today he made a controversial edit here of removing this source[1], [2] inspite of all other editors trying to come on a consensus on this source here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Daily_Pioneer_covering_the_Alaya_Rahm_Trial. I also noticed that in the comments he mentioned that "There was a supreme Court Petition in India in 2002" which was mentioned earlier by another editor. I am wondering if this could be a case of multiple accounts being used by the same single user.
  • Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=315815718&oldid=315750669 - this new user referring to 'Brian Steel' books (well known ex-follower) mentioned User:Ombudswiki in brackets meaning its the same person. Although it has been unclear to all other editors working here whether 'Brian Steel' is really editing as User:Ombudswiki or not?
  • How does this brand new editor knows for sure that 'Brian Steel' activist and ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba is indeed User:Ombudswiki? This could very well be the case of a single user using multiple accounts to advocate his views. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is not for second guessing or canvassing opinion on the motivations of other editors, if you have an issue with another editor's behaviour please take it up in the appropriate venue. This talk page does not need any more drama and accusations, it is for discussing improvements to this article only. Mfield (Oi!) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Shirdi Sai Baba and claims

i do not see the need for placing "Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and his claims of Divinity [9]made during the early years of his Mission, are recorded in the volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks.[10]" in the lead paragraph.

  • the previous statement "He has repeatedly claimed to be the reincarnation of the fakir and saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi" already states this claim, theres no need to repeat it.
  • the Sathya Sai Speaks series is in the bibliography (and among references to the information already stated) what is the reason for stating it as a subject? i dont think this is information that lends itself to a lead paragraph
  • why is Smt. Vijayakumari mentioned? who is he? and what important relationship to Sathya Sai Baba does he hold? so what if he was an early devotee? should Subbamma be mentioned in the introduction? she obviously also had first hand knowledge of Sai Baba's youth.
  • it seems the only point the sentence (and ombudswiki) is trying to make is about Sai Baba's "claims of Divinity"? what are you exactly trying to say? why all the dross of repeating the previous sentence about Shirdi Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Speaks reference? It is already stated that he is " a South Indian guru, religious figure" Guru in wikipedia states, "In its purest form this principle manifests on earth as a divine incarnation (saint), a person with supreme knowledge about God and all creation." if the term "Guru" implies divinity, then this is also a repetition of the first sentence.

on the site http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/doss2claims.htm brian steel states "From the beginning of his Mission, it was SSB who assiduously attracted attention to himself and encouraged his devotees to talk about the special features he was promoting: his MIRACLES and his healing ability, his Avatarhood and Divine powers, his relationship with the legendary Hindu Avatars (Rama and Krishna), and the Shirdi Baba reincarnation connection." is this another reference to this connection? he continues, "From the mid-1960s to date, SSB's Organisation, the SSO, took over the main task of propagation of this Divine image of SSB, especially in print." do the Sathya Sai Speaks series count as "print"? if so, then the same view on that web site is being propogated here. is there a "concern" about the Sathya Sai speaks series?

similarities seem to be

  • Shirdi Sai Baba reincarnation connection
  • Claims of Divinity
  • propogation of these ideas ("in print" or the Sathya Sai speaks series)

the editorial addition is repeating what has already been stated. and seems to be propogating original research, hence it should not be in the lead paragraph.

the Sathya Sai speaks series is obviously a source for information about Sathya Sai Baba.

J929 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I wish to draw attention to J929’s haste in resuming his activities so soon after the raising of the Protection order on this article. Once again in these voluminous Discussion pages, on which he has expressed himself prolifically, J929 has offered a doubly flawed argument to justify his repeated deletions of my factual material. One flaw is his tendency to confuse useful factual documentation (the listing and citing of Reliable – and relevant - Sources) with original research. (Incidentally, the Reliable Sources I referred to in my addition to the paragraph also happen to be neglected Primary (or Secondary?) sources.) The other familiar flaw in J929’s objection to the material is the long convoluted references to irrelevant external sources.
J929 has now objected more than twice to the inclusion of the following 37-word sentence (already pared down since his first reversion, so his reference to Viyayakumari is out of date) and its 2 essential references:

“Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and his claims of Divinity [Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20070217085749/www.sathyasai.org/discour/content.htm] made during the early years of his Mission, are recorded in the volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks.[Reference: Especially in Volume 1, which contains translations of Discourses delivered during the years 1953 to 1960. See http://www.sssbpt.info/english/sssvol01.html]”

Let me explain briefly why the short initial paragraph to this article needed expanding:

1.

“He is described by his devotees as an avatar …” [I have added italics.] This is of course true but it is also a frequently repeated and misleading half-truth. There was no reference in this paragraph to the official primary evidence (in the freely available volumes of Sathya Sai Speaks) that Sathya Sai Baba himself has repeatedly asserted that he is the Avatar and has special Divine powers. This is one of the circumstances leading to the beliefs by his devotees and is a basic fact about his life and work. I tried to fill that gap by referring directly to the official web pages and books which have endorsed and made this information freely available to the public for many years.

2.

“He has repeatedly claimed to be the reincarnation of the fakir and saint, Shirdi Sai Baba …” In the original paragraph (prior to my addition), this is also potentially misleading, because readers may assume that this is the only relevant assertion or claim by Sathya Sai Baba, which as I have just pointed out, is far from the known and recorded truth. Hence my additional reference to material about Shirdi Sai and to the other assertions or claims so that they can all be referred to together. (It is to be noted that J929 does not object here to the word “claimed”.)

That is why I claim that my posting of the short additional sentence and references is positive and legitimate. The reference to the 39 volumes of Sathya Sai Baba’s Discourses is to a primary source of information. So my factual sentence, far from containing “research” conclusions, is simply a pointer to basic reference points – inexplicably neglected by Wikipedians so far - from which to approach the description of the life and works of this important guru.
I am relieved to see that User Onopearls has reinstated the succinct sentence and references to the article. I suggest that this small contribution improves the article’s information value and I hope that it will help all editors to consult the “acres” of prime officially supplied information about Sathya Sai Baba to which it refers. I believe this to be a a more constructive and appropriate editing activity than that of User J929. Ombudswiki (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to your personnal attacks, condescending tone and patronizing remarks i'm no longer reading your comments. the effort of sifting through the mud of your 'edits' has ceased. if you want to in good faith continue this discussion , please re-write your previous 'edits' without the slanderous comments. this is not your personnal web page. (write in point form if you dont want to employ social graces)

in relation to the topic, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

J929 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Claims concerning Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba's Divinity are already discussed (See Guru) the only new info is that the Sathya Sai series contains Sathya Sai Baba's disocurses.

"So my factual sentence, far from containing “research” conclusions, is simply a pointer to basic reference points" is an analysis, which is prohibited by Wikipedia.

The edit includes "Especially in Volume 1, which contains ..." "Especially" seems to pointing to a difference from one volume to another. That would seem to be a conclusion. which is not allowed in WP:OR. nor is the synthesis and implied analyis of restating claims and then referencing them to the Sathya Sai Speaks series, "especially" volume 1.

i would like to add that the conclusions are similiar to, "My hypothesis is that these extraordinary claims, although dealing mainly with non-factual matters and beliefs, and therefore not verifiable, may nevertheless have a significant relationship with SSB’s previously described stories, which appear to be the products of his erroneous beliefs or his unfettered imagination." http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm and "the Sathya Sai Organisation must bear its share of the responsibility for the propagation and re-quoting of such demonstrably unreliable material, particularly when it is presented as evidence of SSB’s Divine status"

"Other reiterations of Sathya Sai Baba’s claim to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba" is close "inappropriate references and ‘name-dropping’ (by SSB)" ie . Shirdi Sai Baba http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm "and his claims of Divinity" seems to be similar to "Divine claims will be reviewed in the light of a hypothesis drawn from this basic evidence, which, like the explicit claims themselves, is feeely (typo) available in the official Sathya Sai Speaks volumes." is there a conclusion ot the hypothesis? is this WP:OR?

i would also like to draw the similarity to this form of WP:OR editing to the inclusion of two paragraphs about "Love is My Form" (a book) in the biography section of the page. The subject of a biography is the person it is discussing, not a book. These paragraphs should be moved to another section moved suited to the topic (and the analysis and conclusions it implies) removed or summarised in the previous paragraph.

J929 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem so eager to use the bdsteel.tripod.com as a reference for your conspiracy theories, here is a simple question that will solve all of this, and prove that Ombudswiki is putting OR on Wikipedia. Can you offer one diff that shows that he sourced his own website to information he has put onto any Wikipedia page? I don't think so. The Shirdi Sai Baba phrase is not sourced to his own website, but to a SSB site. I'm sorry, but I don't see where you are coming up with this fanciful notion of OR. I would suggest you attack the sources and prove they are unreliable instead of continuing to attack Ombudswiki, as you have failed wholeheartedly to prove he has done anything wrong. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

the addition repeats what is already stated about Shirdi Sai Baba, and the term Divinity is included in the wikipedia article for Guru. Nothing new is addressed by the addition. the source referenced goes to the main page of discourses. does that entail readers to go through thousands of pages to find one reference to Divinity? "Especially in Volume 1, which contains translations of Discourses delivered during the years 1953 to 1960. See http://www.sssbpt.info/english/sssvol01.html " especially in volume 1. i do not see any specific references. if you want to fix the reference, you can read volume one and add specifics. offering an entire volume for a reference implies to find the conclusion ones self, which is speculation until the point is proven.
WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." the edit seems suspicious as it references the Sathya Sai Speaks books directly. (much like the Love is My Form paragraphes) i thought wikipedia references were held until the references section. why are the books referenced to rather the subject? is a conclusion being drawn? if so, even so slighty, that is original research.
what does your "one question" have to do with the subject? if someone references their own site that is COI, is it not? if someone implies a conclusion in an edit that is speculation and original research. which is not part of wikipedia policy, especially in a BLP.

J929 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

where is it printed (a reliable source) that volume 1 contains more "claims" by Sai Baba. If there is no source for this conclusion, then it is original research. having the read the material is good but to make your own conclusions through analysis (and add those conclusions in an article) is WP:OR.

ombudswiki writes,

  • "I tried to fill that gap by referring directly to the official web pages and books which have endorsed and made this information freely available to the public for many years." then mention only the Sathya Sai Speaks series (without implying claims)
  • "In the original paragraph (prior to my addition), this is also potentially misleading, because readers may assume that this is the only relevant assertion or claim by Sathya Sai Baba," the reference to Shirdi Sai Baba was mentioned because of the common knowledge about the relation of Sathya Sai Baba to the name Sai Baba, and Sai Baba of Shirdi. the statement holds no conclusion other than that what has already been stated by Sathya Sai Baba himself.

to corelate his discourses to claims and his devotees acceptance (or not) of his words is an analysis, and unless there is a reliable source that states this, it is WP:OR.

i dont think that these statements should be a platform for original research or POVs. if Sathya Sai Baba has said that he is the re-incarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba then i think it is incorrect to say he "claims" it as the 'claim' can not be proven (he is or he is not). he has said it and the wording of the article should reflect that and its acceptance by his devotees is another topic altogether.

maybe more suited to the Sathya Sai Baba movement page.


J929 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

thought for the day

Why shouldn'te we add this for daily source? [3]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.84.247 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.radiosai.org/pages/thought.asp it seems reputable considering it comes from Radio Sai... although the previous "Thought for the Day"s are archived for only 30 days and there seems to be no lasting records beyond the current 30 days. http://www.radiosai.org/pages/cal2.asp
if the pages are archived then i'd say yes, if unretrievable after 30 days, then not sure...
does the "thought for the day" come from a discourse or are they from Sathya Sai Baba daily?

J929 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer Again

If people have a problem with this source they need to bring it up again on the RS board, not give their personal opinions. The source has been there for a very long time and was deemed reliable when brought to the RS board. I find it suspicious that use:crotalus who has never contributed to the article comes in all of sudden, tries to get me banned (in bad faith) and then won't accept two small paragraphs from a source that was considered reliable when first brought up after someone questioned it. To avoid an edit war the entry from the Pioneer was cut down considerably as a compromise. If the Pioneer goes then the Alaya Rahm case goes. It needs to be stated that the case was dropped. It also needs to be stated that Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime whatsoever and there is nothing current anywhere in the world against him. The Pioneer states those very two FACTS, not opinions. The source stays until brought up on the RS board. Sbs108 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The source stays? You say this as if you are a dictator. You are not. Last time it was brought up the conclusion was that it was not reliable.
Find a better source. Surely you can find a competent journalist who agrees with The Pioneer? Bhimaji (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please show me where it was deemed unreliable. Please provide the link.Sbs108 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=315578873#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain
I repeat my request: instead of arguing here, find a better source that makes the same claims. Surely there is another journalist who has said these things? Bhimaji (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I really don't find anything from an outside admin saying its unreliable except for Fiferlo whose point is unclear at best. All the comments were by radiantenergy, myself, ombuswiki, crotalus, and bhimaji. Orginially at least three outside admins said the source was reliable in the original discussion. All the users above mentioned are on opposite sides of the coin so it should go again to the RS board with comments only by outside admins, not by current editors and their puppets.Sbs108 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
We have already gone through several rounds of discussion about this source. I thought we had reached a consensus mentioning only the facts from this source. If BBC allegations are mentioned then the disclaimers from Daily Pioneer should also be there to avoid BLP violations. This has been very clearly mentioned in the earlier RS discussion. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH

The fact that Sai Baba has never been charged or convicted of any crime is not open to debate. If someone can come up with proof of this let them prove it. This is what the Pioneer states. It also states that Alaya Rahm dropped the case. This is also not open to debate.Sbs108 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody claiming he has been charged with a crime? I don't see anybody claiming that.
We are not debating this. We are requesting verification. A claim has been made. Asking for verification of the claim does not mean you believe it to be false.
The article should remain silent on this topic until a reliable source is found for this claim. Bhimaji (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I found a reliable source already years ago and it used to be in the article. Andries (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20001204/cover4.shtml "In Munich, Germany, Jens Sethi, a former devotee who claims he was molested, has filed a complaint in the public prosecutor's office." Andries (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Bhimaji, from the BLP perspective it is relevant and importat to the article to mention that Sai Baba has never been charged of abuse as the whole criticism section deals with allegations based on heresay accounts. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Untrue, he was charged in Munchen, Germany by Jens Sethi. It is not surprising taking into account the degree of power he has in Puttaparthi. Andries (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Here we are not talking about allegations rather Sathya Sai Baba being charged or convicted in a trial before a judge. The only trial related to Sathya Sai Baba which was formally filed in a Court of Law was the Alaya Rahm trial. Even the Alaya Rahm trial did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, Jens Sethi formally charged SSB in Munich, Germany. Andries (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You know very well that your description of the Alaya Rahm trial is one-sided. Andries (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This excerpt from India Today is from before the Alaya Rahm trial and refers to Jens Sethi http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20001204/cover4.shtml "Even among the western cases, except for one person, no one has moved court against Baba yet. Critics says this is because they know they won't have the power to summon Baba to court-the allegations pertain to Indian jurisdiction." Andries (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The question is was there a real trial by Jens Sethi in a Court of Law? Filing a report is not same as going through a formal trial in a Court of Law. Alaya Rahm filed his allegations formally in a Court. But then during the middle of the court trial he self dismissed his allegation case. Otherwise the trial would have continued. The Alaya Rahm case also disproves the critics comments mentioned above.
In this article only important facts about Alaya Rahm trial has been mentioned. I don't see any one-sided descriptions anywhere. If BBC allegations are mentioned then this case also has to be mentioned as per the earlier RS recommendation. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Which critic's comments does the Alaya Rahm case disprove? Bhimaji (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Critic viewed that they could not summon Sathya Sai Baba to a court trial. But the 2006 Alaya Rahm trial disproved that view. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Did Sathya Sai Baba testify? Did a court trial come to a conclusion? Filing a civil lawsuit in the USA is quite easy. The claim I've seen is that courts in India are unwilling to investigate claims against SSB. A civil lawsuit in the USA doesn't say anything about India. Bhimaji (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The question is why the official charge by Jens Sethi is not in the article and why the statement from the Daily Pioneer that SSB is not charged is stated as a fact?

Andries (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Andries, You have n’t answered my earlier question. Was there a court trial by Jens Sethi on Sathya Sai Baba before a judge in Germany or in any other Country?
  • When its stated that some one is Convicted or Sentenced or Charged means that the person was found guilty of committing a crime and hence he was convicted after a trial / investigation before a judge. In case of Sathya Sai Baba the only known court trial filed was by Alaya Rahm. Even there in the middle of the trial Alaya Rahm self dismissed his allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Sathya Sai Baba has not been Convicted or Sentenced or Charged for abuse under Law either in USA or in India in any kind of court trial before a judge. Hence there is nothing wrong with the fact / statement mentioned in the 'Daily Pioneer' that Neither Sathya Sai Baba nor his Organisation has been convicted / charged of sexual abuse.
  • I am also wondering why are you interested in adding more and more criticism to this BLP article inspite of having a whole section solely dealing with only Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba? You are still involved in this article inspite of being banned from editing this article due to your WP:COI with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Radiantenergy, I do not know how the Jens Sethi case proceeded, but I only ask that we follow reputable sources regarding Jens Sethi. Omission makes the article one-sided. India Today which is far more reputable than Daily Pioneer disagree with each other and so the statement from the Daily Pioneer should not be stated as a fact. Andries (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Radiantenergy, you still haven't answered my question: Which critic's comments does the Alaya Rahm case disprove?
Also, you state above that "convicted or sentenced or charged means that the person was found guilty of committing a crime."
Charged does not mean found guilty. In many countries charges happen before a judge looks at the case. Bhimaji (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The context used in the 'Daily Pioneer' is quite clear. The statement is as follows "The truth is that neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse". Meaning he was not convicted or charged of sexual abuse. It could be stated clearly in the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

the BBC documentary was deemed a BLP violation, and yet is still included in the page. it is secondary that the Daily Pioneer is being argued.

J929 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary is not neutral at all

What should be mentioned in the summary is 1. the major controversies and the 2. fact that SSB claimed to be a divine incarnation himself. This is not something that devotees say about SSB. There are many reputable sources for this claim by SSB about himself e.g. Reinhart Hummel. Andries (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from "Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba" by Reinhart Hummel
"The Guru as Father God
The answer to that question has been answered by Sai Baba himself: »I am the omnipresent, almighty, and omniscient.« Asked about the time between Krishna and himself, he replied: »Time? I am Krishna! Where is time?« One interview reads:
Swami, you are reported as saying on Christmas Day 1972, that Jesus said: .He who sent me among you will come again. His name will be truth (sathya). He will wear a blood-red robe. He will be short, with a crown (of hair).« Does that mean that it was you who sent Jesus into incarnation? With ineffable simplicity, in his soft, gentle voice, Swami nodded and said, »Yes.«
In a word: Sathya Sai Baba knows himself as God the father or as »the embodied, omnipresent divine principle without limits,« respectively. »The whole universe is in the palm of my hands,« quoth he."
Andries (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote at Citizendium in the summary ". He differs from most other gurus by his unambiguous and explicit claims of personal divinity: he claims to be a full avatar of the Hindu deities Shiva and Shakti [..]"
Andries (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I admit that what I wrote at Citizendium is a free interpretation of what Babb wrote: Babb only compared SSB with Radhasoami gurus, not with all gurus in general. Andries (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


"2. fact that SSB claimed to be a divine incarnation himself. This is not something that devotees say about SSB."
there are many personnal accounts/claims of Sai Baba's Divinity.
it's a joke for you to imply there are not.

J929 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say that it is not just devotees who say that SSB is an avatar. (Such a statement about the beliefs of followers is better suited at Sathya Sai Baba movement), but that SSB has made such extraordinary claims about himself and this is also reflected in several reputable sources. Andries (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


"The hospital has a large central building with a magnificent dome which is connected to four buildings on either side each with a dome. Critchlow was given three months to complete the design and the hospital was built in nine months. This according to Prof. Critchlow is a feat only Sai Baba could perform." http://www.lerwill-life.org.uk/spirit/sai.htm etc etc etc...

J929 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


"Dr. Michael Nobel, great grand nephew of Alfred Nobel, chairman, Appeal of Nobel Peace Laureates Foundation states, "The world's hospitals are filled with expensive and advanced medical technology. It is also easy to find free hospitals. But the combination of the two, of a super speciality, highly advanced, state-of-the-art hospital which is free for the poor - that is a unique, completely unique concept. And if we add to that Sai Baba's presence, and the spirituality which his presence lends to the hospital, it becomes a very unique creation. I know hospitals very well, but I have never seen anything like this on earth."" http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/features/saibaba/stories/2005112300270300.htm


J929 (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


"1. the major controversies " or the allegations?

J929 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Andries, I don't see any issues with the current Summary section. Its written neutrally as it is now. I am wondering if you are trying to push your personal agenda in to this article. I am not sure why you are involved here inspite of being banned from this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Radiantenergy, I have the right to voice my concerns on the talk page. I suggest you seek dispute resolution because we have not come any closer on the issue of mentioning the controversy in the summary in spite of extensive discussion. Andries (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: excerpts of sources that can be used

I added Poggendorf-Kakar who wrote that the SSB organization has deliberately and greatly exaggerated its number of adherents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources Andries (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Orator"

In a discourse Sai Baba says,
"He does not hesitate, hum and haw,
He does not calculate, pause and ponder,
He does not wait, waver, wander.
Collecting, selecting thoughts and words,
He seeks no notes or quotes.
He does not tarry, decorating speech
With flowery frills, dressing borrowed phrase
In shimmering gloss. He is no orator"
etc...
http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume16/sss16.pdf

if he is refering to himself, Sai Baba states "he is no orator".

BLP policy says "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
the description was removed as it may be a violation of BLP policy.

J929 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from Kasturi about SSB. Not SSB about himself. I admit that I cannot find a source for the word "orator" so quickly, though it cannot be reasonably denied, taking into account that is an undisputed fact that he has given hundreds of public speeches for large audiences. Andries (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This source comes close to saying that SSB is an orator. Lawrence Babb, Redemptive Encounters 1986 pages 171
"Sathya Sai Baba is, among other things, a teacher.He teaches how to achieve kaivalyam i.e.salvation. He is a frequent giver of discourses, now compiled in several volumes. He usually speaks in Telugu, and before a Hindi-speaking audience an interpreter is required. One of his most characteristic rhetorical devices is the ad hoc (and often false) etymology. For example, he has stated that Hindu means `one who is nonviolent' by the combination of hinsa (violence) and dur (distant)."
Andries (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism by IP addresses

The following IP addresses have been Vanadalizing the Sathya Sai Baba article.

  • 122.169.168.196
  • 198.152.14.67
  • 58.146.111.227

Radiantenergy (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing that SSB is a pedophile is not automatically vandalism See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Andries (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Andries, You have been banned from this article because of your WP:COI. I am still wondering why you are actively involved here. You seem to continue to push your personal agendas into this article. This is a WP:BLP article. These IP addresses have been deliberately attempting to add contentious material about a living person in this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I only meant to say that these IPs may have had good intentions, even though their edits are not constructive, so they may not be vandalism according to the Wikipedia of vandalism. There is some good reason for their edits, because several reputable sources stated that SSB is a pedophile. Andries (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of pedophile. There were some alleged allegations but nothing has been proved in a Court of Law before a Judge. Even in the Alaya Rahm case Sathya Sai Baba was not found to have committed any wrong doing. Remember this is a BLP article. Contentious material will not be allowed. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Objection to the use of devotee material and discourses for biography

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

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

Content

Thought For the Day 5th December 2009

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

- BABA

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

Love is My Form, again!

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

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

For the record, this important reference was removed again 2 days later, by J929, with this pretext: "removed hidden comment as article is too long, best to take it to the talk page". J929 obviously does not read the Talk page.

Is no one concerned about this repeated smothering of references to this basic bibliographical source on such irrelevant arguments? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Moon Miracle" Removal

in accordance with wikipedia policy to keep the article size at bay, the section on the moon article was removed as it seems of little importance as a controversial subject. there is also a webpage with claims of the "moon miracle" being witnessed by many people. http://www.saibabaofindia.com/news4oct_sai_baba.htm that seems to refute paragraph subject.


J929 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you J929. Good find. Regardless of whether it happened, the paragraph was additional clutter.

Boromir123 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This devotee or official site is entirely unusable as a source of information for Wikipedia, whether it is pro- or anti- miracle. Rumiton (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to shorten references in this way: [4]. What is displayed for the end user is the same, and many editors prefer having the template format in the article, as it makes it easy to achieve consistent formating of references. --JN466 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Complying with requests for clean-up

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

I'd say go for it. Smartse (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a reduction is good but it should be done carefully and not by just one person, of course anyone can do anything they want but I think the most productive way would be a collaboration. I can help.Sbs108 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Let's wait a few days to see if there's anyone else. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I welcome more NPOV which means less reliance on devotee sources, Kasturi, or sources derived from thoses sources that have been assessed as hagiographic and unreliable by three different scholars (Babb, Palmer and Poggendorf-Kakar). I also think that neutrality means that the article should better reflect the very critical attitude of many mainstream sources, like the BBC and the Times. (Neutrality in Wikipedia means following what reputable sources have stated.) Andries (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What are the criteria for the label "too long" for a Wikipedia encyclopedic entry of this type? And how does User Rumiton justify a massive 60% cut? I seriously object to the idea of such a drastic truncation and will keep an eye on developments over the coming weeks or months for later contributions if they become necessary. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article should not follow a very critical attitude because these allegations have not been proven, backed up or followed up on by these sources nor has there been any cases against Sai Baba. Just because these allegations were mentioned in reputable sources can't negate the entire life of Sai Baba and the good he is done. Sai Baba is not known for these allegations, these are not the origin of his fame. Besides there has been absolutely no follow up by these sources accept the one time articles (Documentary) that presented these "allegations" nor has there been any new allegations nor any cases. There is already enough criticism in the article given the BLP standards. I don't agree with any pro or anti statements. Tell the life like it is without distortion and sensationalism. A critical view is well into the minority no matter how you want to slice it. In other words its basically a footnote in the article. To present more of a "critical" view than is already there is a complete distortion of reality.Sbs108 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Andries, nice to meet you again. I agree that the sources that prevail here seem to be devotional. But as we have seen elsewhere, insisting on a "balance" of pro and anti statements creates a schizoid article that no one is happy with, least of all the reader who goes to Wikipedia for information. I think it is possible for the encyclopedia to speak with a balanced voice that acknowledges all points of view but promotes none of them. Are you happy to cooperate in this endeavour? Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I also believe a reduction is a good start. However, as you can see from the archived discussions, any widespread removal of information without discussion first causes a good bit of controversy and talk page arguments. Perhaps singling out the worst sections, and discussing those here would be a better step than up and removing 60% of a very, very long article. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree to 60% article reduction proposal from Rumiton. But I do agree that this article can benefit from some clean up. As pointed out by Onopearls and others this clean up has to be done carefully section by section.
  • The Political Row Section:
I agree with others that this section adds nothing notable to this article. This section could be removed. This section may be a good starting point to clean up the article.
  • Beliefs and Practices of Devotees Section and Ashrams and Mandirs Section:
These two sections could be merged with the 'Sathya Sai Movement' article - as it will fit in well there. In this main Sathya Sai Baba article we can just have the section headings with the link to the Sathya Sai Movement article. This is to prevent new editors from re-adding these two sections.
  • The Summary Section, Criticism and Controversy Section and Response to Criticism Section:
These 3 sections are very well written and well referenced. There is no need to touch these sections and we can leave them as it is.
  • Biography Section:
This will be a challenging section if we plan to clean up. It may be better to leave it as it is.
  • Claims of Materialisation and Institution Sections:
These sections also will need specific clean up discussion.

Even if we all agree on cleaning up few sections in this article mentioned above such as Political Row, Beliefs and Practices of Devotees Section and Ashrams and Mandirs Section that will definitely help in reducing the size of this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards of the endorsement by the reliable sources noticeboard about use of official sources for this article. Where is this thread? Were they informed that three scholars (Babb, Palmer, and Poggendorf-Kakar) deemed the official biographer, Kasturi, hagiographic and unreliable? If not then, the thread had to be re-opened. Poggendorf-Kakar wrote that the Sathya Sai Org. had deliberately and consciously inflated the number of adherents for its propagandistic value. Andries (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there might be some reason for optimism, at least quite a number of editors agree that changes need to be made. I have no personal interest in this subject and don't intend to spend the next five years arguing minutiae with editors who hold strong opinions about it. As I said above, a balance needs to be set, and this is hard to achieve when editors try to block anything that doesn't support their view or clamor for the insertion of information that does. I have worked on other religiously oriented pages that were heavily disputed, with, I think, pretty good results, at least from the point of long-term stability (see Jesus Army). Then I got banned for 12 months from the Prem Rawat page, but the article I contributed to there has also proved stable. If editors give me the OK, I will start a bit at a time. The intention will be to create an article "that might not be what anybody would have wanted, but which all can live with." Want to try? Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

it might be a good idea to propose what changes you feel are pertanent to make. there may be more problems with editors trying to "clean up" or re-do any of the changes afterwards.

i removed the section "political row" as a few editors feel its not too important of a section.
hopefully a good start...


J929 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

post deletion-- the article went from 90000 bytes to 84000, considering that was one section, it may feasible to bring the article size down considerably with the proposals by radiantenergy. i wouldnt mind removing some info as well. ie walk for values has its own page now so it can be refered to and redirected.
although i think anything directly correlated to Sai Baba ie. hospitals, water projects should be kept in as it was Sai Baba who proposed these ideas and are direct reference to Sathya Sai Baba's character.

J929 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some good progress, but the main thing is that only reputable sources are acceptable to Wikipedia, especially in a Living Biography. Many of the sources given here might at best be described as primary. Primary sources are considered OK if they are "not unduly self-promoting." Quoting your mother as saying you were conceived immaculately would clearly seem to be outside of this restriction, and a lot of other statements in the article are likewise unacceptable. On the other hand, having a separate Criticism section is only going to attract negative comment and POV. It has generally been found better to weave criticism into the main text body in a neutral way. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the initial clean up should still focus on deciding what sections to keep and what sections to merge with the 'Sathya Sai Movement' This way we can first cut down the size of the article.
  • This article has been developed and has taken a shape over the years. The clean up task will be a challenge and needs to be done carefully in phases and specific section wise. Clean up does n't really mean cutting down 60% of the article.
  • After initial clean up then we can probably discuss and decide on more tasks such as whether to merge 'Criticism section' into the main article etc after input from everyone.
  • The usage of the primary sources in this article was taken for discussion to the reliable source notice board forum. In that discussion other wikipedians agreed that just like other religious wikipedia articles this article can use the Official Sathya Sai Websites as its Primary source. The primary source information related to this Organaisation, religious beliefs and other practices may not be available from third party newspapers or publications etc. Hence it was decided that the Official Sathya Sai Website can be used. However, when cleaning up sections which uses primary sources we can make sure its used properly with out any kind of promotion.
  • Its very important that those who want to work in this article should familiarise themselves with the earlier mediation discussions about sources and other earlier discussions etc. Here's the link from BostonMA discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation. This link has several related discussions about the sources used in this article.
Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


there is some concern on my part with the statement, "Then I got banned for 12 months from the Prem Rawat page"... it doesnt really seem to build any cofidence in the propsal. why were you banned?

the statement "Quoting your mother as saying you were conceived immaculately" doesnt clearly reflect what was written. from the article it says, "Let’s start with our Beloved Sri Sathya Sai Baba whose conception was shrouded in mystery until a pundit well versed in the Holy Puranas felt a sudden urge to ask a question. “Swami! Was your Incarnation a Pravesa (Entrance) or a Prasava (Encience)?” To answer his question, Swami turned to Mother Easwaramma, the chosen Mother, and said to her, “Tell Rama Sarma what happened that day near the well after your mother-in-law had warned you.”

The Mother said, “I had dreamt of Sathya Narayana Deva and she cautioned me that I should not be frightened if something happened to me through the Will of God. That morning when I was at the well drawing water, a big ball of blue light came rolling towards me and I fainted and fell. I felt it glided into me”. Swami then turned to Rama Sarma with a smile and said, “There you have the answer, I was not begotten. It was Pravesa, not Prasava”."
Sai Baba is not quoting his mother. She spoke of it herself.

familiarity with the topic may be a good idea, not a quota.

i'd like to make the following changes myself...
-"Beliefs and practices of devotees" moved to sathya sai baba movement page.
-"Ashrams and mandirs" last paragraph removed, and banner/redirection to Prashanti Nilayam page added.
-"Institutions, organizations and projects" remove Walk for Values.

i'm familiar enough with the topics and references to transfer the info.
are there any additions, suggestions, concerns or objections to these proposed changes?

J929 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Big concerns. I was banned (in my own words) for losing my temper with someone who dredged the available sources for negative information and tried to apply almost impossible standards for sources of positive information. There are good reasons why Wikipedia demands civility above almost all other virtues, and my opponent was more civil than I was, so he only got reprimanded. I submitted that information in the interests of full disclosure. Getting back to the section you quote, this is really about the most over-blown and unencyclopedic piece of prose I have read anywhere on Wikipedia. It is clearly using Wikipedia to create the impression that the subject of this article is of super-human origin. It is "unduly self-serving" writ large, and shifting it somewhere else in Wikipedia is not the way to deal with it. Getting a primary source accepted where none other is available is one thing, but using it insert stuff like this into the article is quite another. You are splitting hairs by effectively saying, "He didn't say it; his mother did. He just agreed with her." Rumiton (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow your argument at all, Rumiton. J929 quotes correctly from the archives. This is what Sathya Sai Baba is alleged to have said and his Organisation, and many other writers, have repeated this extraordinary claim of an immaculate conception. Many devotees probably believe this to be true. It is part of their faith. Surely, this reported statement and the rest of what Sathya Sai Baba has said in his (translated - but neglected) Discourses is relevant to his biography. Or do you propose to delete all statements made by him and promoted by his Organisation? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
We have ample secondary sources. The thing to do is to see which of these statements by Sai Baba are presented in secondary sources like Babb, and how they are presented there. It is the presentation in such secondary sources that we should summarise. Wikipedians making their own selections from Sai Baba primary sources and presenting statements made in these sources at face value is not the way to go; it is original research. We are supposed to summarise existing research. --JN466 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What Jayen said. Please try to follow this argument; it can save a lot of distress for a lot of people for a long time. If you allow primary sources for such controversial information you are looking at years of angry debate between some editors who find the wording disrespectful and others who think it is not scornful enough. Scholarly sources put such claims in a cultural context and look into any mitigating or contradictory material. They give us a mature, balanced and well-informed view of the subject. Where strong points of view are held, this may not make either side particularly happy, but it is better than endless conflict. It also delivers an article which isn't going to get stubbed by admins and saves a lot of Wiki-bloodshed. (smileyface) Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(In answer to Jayen466 and Rumiton) It seems that you are willing to ignore or reject a perfectly good source of information, easily available and verifiable online. There are about 37 volumes of Discourses made by Sathya Sai Baba himself since the 1950s and published online (in translation) by his Organisation. What is wrong with quoting from these directly in relation to aspects of his life and teachings and leaving readers to draw their own conclusions? Your view of research seems unnecessarily restricted. Quoting verifiable statements (made by the subject of the "biography") in this way is not research; it is sharing one's reading (and offering exact sources). By the way, it is possible that secondary sources may not reveal enough of this prime material which so many devotees have read and absorbed. For instance, in my personal experience, many scholars have paid insufficient attention to the content and themes of the Discourses. Babb's 1980s writings (mentioned by you and often advocated by Andries) are one notable exception. As are those of Beyerstein, but he has been declared taboo on this site. Ombudswiki (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What you're saying is equivalent to saying, "It seems that you are willing to follow Wikipedia policy ... what is wrong with not following it?" For example: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy [...] the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:SOURCES, policy). SSS is not third-party, and it has no such professional structure in place. "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see the discussion of self-published sources for exceptions" (WP:NOR, policy). Self-published sources like Sai Baba's discourses must not be used if they are unduly self-serving or involve claims about third parties (WP:SPS, policy). "Wikipedia articles should rely on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (WP:PSTS, policy). Scholars have looked at the primary sources and have come to their conclusions about it. If you feel that you can provide a better summary or analysis than they have, or that "scholars have paid insufficient attention", then you should endeavour to get your analysis published by a reputable publisher; Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish your original insights, even if you consider them to be superior to those published by scholars. And if we are happily in agreement about the suitability of Babb, then let us please work on rewriting the biography section using Babb as a source, rather than the primary sources. I will try to get hold of the paper by Urban. --JN466 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Jayen466, I do agree with you that there are a lot of academic materials from university presses which could be used. There are academic publication from Babb Lawrence.
Here's the list proposed by the Arbitration commitee to be used as source for this article.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang.
Some of these sources are already being used in the article under other sections.
However, please note that all these scholars have used 'Narayana Kasturi's - Biography as the very basis for describing the life story of Sathya Sai Baba (Biography) adding their own interpretations on top of it.
I also came across an academic publication from the New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies - "THE GLOBAL GURU:SAI BABA AND THE MIRACLE OF THE MODERN" by RICHARD WEISS1 from Victoria University of Wellington.
I am will look into these academic sources to see how it could be used in the Biography Section. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Radiantenergy, it is precisely those interpretations by these scholars that Wikipedia is interested in. --JN466 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
None of the listed sources give a serious biography of SSB, because the biography is basically unknown, as some of the academics admit. The sources are better suited for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of Sathya Sai Baba website sources occurs because

  • most (close to all) books describing Sathya Sai Baba's life are based on the writings of Narayana Kasturi and the biography he wrote of Sathya Sai Baba
  • these books and Sathya Sai Baba's discourses are available on line and free to wikipedia editors.

to ask for an editor to make a financial investment to purchase books and sources is quite a proposal. (especially when most of the biographical information is already provided) i'd like to hope those proposing to improve the article are also making the same investments.

J929 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

J929, as I have repeatedly pointed out, some of these books and sources have a free preview in google books and/or in amazon.com or amazon.co.uk that you can view at any time without paying anything. This applies in particular to Babb: [5], to Beckford: [6], to Eade: [7], to Kent: [8]. I will be happy if you work on extracting from these scholarly sources what you can for our biography here. (Remember that you may be able to view pages missing in google books in amazon.) By the way, I estimate that over the past two years I have spent at least $2,000 on books and other sources related to Wikipedia research! --JN466 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ombudswiki,Sourced quotes by SSB or about SSB from primary source material can go here Wikiquote:Sathya Sai Baba. Using primary source material for the article would only work if there was only one competent, knowledgeable and fair editor. Not when there is more than one, or when the editor is incompetent or when competent editors have widely divergent views on the subject. In other words, it will not work for Wikipedia and certainly not for this article. Andries (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

  • 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. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

  • Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision 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.

The ArbCom has twice found this article to have serious problems with its sourcing. An uninvolved editor noticed current problems and asked me to address the issue. The article apparently makes extensive use of movement websites for its sourcing, including:

Wikipedia should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. While self-published sites may be used, they should not be the main sources. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. In addition, this article includes exceptional claims and those require exceptional sources. See WP:REDFLAG. Further, many of the links to websites are mere bare links, with no information about page titles, authors, accessdates, etc. Citation style was one of the ArbCom's related issues. I have not made a full review of the article or its sources, but I've seen enough to make me concerned.

Is there a reason why this article makes so much use of the movement websites? If not, that situation should be remedied. If facts or interpretations are not available in independent sources, are they necessary to include? In not, they should be removed. I urge involved editors to review the ArbCom remedies, the content and sourcing policies to make sure this article is in full compliance.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Will that the liberal use of movement websites in this article appears to be quite inappropriate. Please remember that it would be just as inappropriate to source the article to the websites and self-published writings of Sai Baba's critics, which is a similar problem which this article has suffered from in the past. The article should reflect the views and facts described in reputable secondary sources, among which scholarly sources are usually the most reliable. Movement websites are primary sources and should be used sparingly, e.g. to provide additional support for specific statements.
  • I invite editors to review WP:NRMMOS, the Manual of Style for articles on new religious movements, especially the section WP:NRMMOS#Sourcing NRM articles. (I recently wrote that MOS. Input welcome.) --JN466 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I entirely concur with Will and JN regarding the sourcing for this article. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 and I have placed a banner which every editor of the article will see:

Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline demands that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary-source material for themselves.
Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources, such as the websites of the Sai Baba movement or its critics.

Considering the history of this article and until the problem subsides, it would be inappropriate to add or restore primary sources to the article without prior discussion on this talk page or in mediation. Let's all make sure that future editing moves the article towards better compliance with Wikipedia's policies and best practices.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a novel proposal, but where would your major information come from? (And would this proposal then be applied to the rewriting of many other similar faith-based topics on Wikipedia?) Would it also leave the way open for the inclusion of material of a work like Love is My Form, which, although written by devotees and of a hagiographical nature, contributes valuable material on the early life of Sathya Sai Baba (interviews with early devotees, photos, etc.)? (See Section 9 of this discussion, above, and in other Archived sections.)
Incidentally, in your list above, two sites are NOT official sites, but DEVOTEE sites (www.saibaba.ws and www.saibabaofindia.com)and should not have been cited at all. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There have been two ArbCom cases that found problems with the sourcing of this article. The two devotee sites appear to be among the most frequently cited, so that's a problem which should be addressed immediately. Primary sources that are reliable can be used within the limits set out by existing policies, but because of the ArbCom cases the aim should be to get the best possible sourcing. The article should not be based upon primary sources, but those may be used to provide illustrative quotes and details that enrich the material based mainly on secondary sources. I am not intending to get involved with the details at this time. If the sourcing and citation problems are made worse instead of better then administrative actions may have to be taken at some level, up to and including stubbing the article, which makes editors start over from scratch, or topic bans for editors. Let's avoid those outcomes and work to improve the article instead.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a "novel proposal." The above suggestion seems to be a piece of mild advice for the remedying of a poor situation. Wikipedia reports what reputable sources say about a subject. If there are not enough references from these sources, then perhaps the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. This can be the case where a well-known subject in a part of the non-English speaking world is not sufficiently well-known in the English world for inclusion. It is up to editors to find neutral and reliable sources (in English) to form the basis of this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Also regarding the work you mention, the material in it would only be "valuable" if it supported and enriched information supplied by reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
As for where major information would come from, the answer is simple: from scholars, who are usually the most reliable sources, and secondly from high-quality, mainstream news sources. Sathya Sai Baba has been written about in hundreds of books published by reputable publishers. Begin with those by the top academic publishers -- university presses, leading academic publishers like Routledge, Springer or Greenwood, and try to identify the standard scholarly works on Sathya Sai Baba that other academics reference and cite. This listing is a good place to start; here is a University Press publication covering his life story. You can certainly cite that. If there are pages missing in the google books display, go to amazon.com which has a fully searchable preview of the book, allowing you (provided you are an existing amazon customer) to view several dozen pages for free. Take screenshots of relevant pages with Alt-Prt Scr if you need to refer to the material again. If a book turns out to be an important source for the article, think about buying it. --JN466 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Scholars (Babb, Palmer and Poggendof-Kakar) have explicitly written that no reliable biographical information is available. Although I personally think that this is somewhat exaggerated, because a few sources are independent from the unreliable official biographer Kasturi, I have to admit that there is also lot of truth in it. The sources recommended by the arbcom are much better suited for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Andries, you have been around Wikipedia for a long time. We HAVE to use secondary sources for a living biography. The only exceptions are for very uncontroversial information, birth dates, number of children etc. If secondary sources have never dealt with the subject, then the article should be stubbed as non-notable. I know it is tempting to insert information from primary sources when editors have strong feelings one way or another about the subject (it can easily be made to reflect their POV) but this temptation must be resisted. Good progress is being made here and needs to continue. If editors can agree on their understanding of sourcing the result will be more stable than if an outsider jumps in and does mass deletions. Please continue. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the article is notable and clearly the article should not be stubbed even though few reliable sources are available for the biography for the same reason that Jesus should not be stubbed. Andries (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't the article that needs to be notable, it is the subject. If he has not been covered by scholarly or otherwise reputable sources, then stubbing is the way to go. Personally, I don't expect this to be the case. But we can't say, "O well, there isn't any reliable biographic material on him, so we need to use unreliable (primary) stuff." Regarding your Jesus comparison, Jesus is not a living person, so he isn't here to write or authorise his own biography. In 2000 years, all the sources have become secondary. Even so, I see a banner on that article warning that material from "affiliated sources" should not be used where more neutral and scholarly sources are available. Let's proceed with that here. I should also say that unless there are some very serious attempts soon to comply with the administrator's above comment that the source problem should be "addressed immediately" I will have to start work on it myself. It would be much better if involved editors did this themselves. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant to say, is that there is a similarity in the sourcing for Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba: reputable secondary sources have stated for both persons that they are not sure about many important aspects of the biography. In addition, both the subjects are notable and should not be stubbed in spite of the lack of certainty about their biographies. Andries (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. If necessary, the article can say that hard info is difficult to find and leave it there. Let's look for the sources now, and maybe it won't come to that. Rumiton (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
see here for a start Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. I could use help to translate university press book by Poggendorf-Kakar from German. Andries (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources - List has a number of unreliable and self published material. This source list has to be reviewed and corrected.
That seems like a good start. My time is very limited, but if you send me the sentences you want to use I can help with the translation. Please watch out for the issue of context in selecting pieces. I have also been sent some other scholarly sources that I am reading through at the moment. Rumiton (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) JN is a native German speaker and very fluent in English, so perhaps we could ask him to check the final result. Rumiton (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help, though I'm too busy in RL this week to be of much use. (You're welcome to drop me a mail, Andries; I have e-mail enabled.) --JN466 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

upon reading some of the results of the "clean up", the question arises, has the contributing editor even read anything about the article's subject, Sai Baba?
the page now reads, "On 8 March 1940, while living with his grandfather, Sathya was apparently stung by a scorpion" where is it written or implied that Sathyanarayan was living in Puttaparthi at this time? if you had read anything from his biographer or even read the previous version of the wikipedia page you would have known that he (Sai Baba) was living in Urvankonda with his brother at the time. http://www.vahini.org/sss/i/serpent.html
what type of editing is this? it is nicely sourced (or poorly, as the information is wrong) but what information are you giving? what process lead this editor to write this garbage? why is this process being employed if the outcome is wrong information?
what is the intent behind this writing? most of the information (ie. life incidences) that is (was) present on the biography section was referened to Babbs, a reliable source (among others), why then is the information being removed?
and more pertanently, to what degree (and by what measure) is the article being condensed as to give false information?

how is this type of editing improving the article?

J929 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I inferred that he was at his grandfather's from the dates. If that is wrong, and you have a source to say so, correct it. Please be civil in your responses, and avoid words like "garbage" in describing other editor's efforts. If we are to make progress in this article, politeness is absolutely necessary. The previous information about his grndfather's request to be helped by him and so on, apart from being sourced from primary sources, is detail that does not concern Wikipedia. Please self revert. Similarly the primary sourced details of his illness. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
J929, the good thing about this is, it's a Wiki. If one of us makes a mistake - we are all human around here - it is easily fixed. But please stop adding more primary source citations to the article, and don't add material that is only mentioned in primary sources. We need secondary sources. --JN466 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Its a challenging task to take bits and pieces of information from different secondary sources and put it together to present correctly the biography as per the original. Its okay to rectify and correct if there are mistakes. Its a group effort. It takes time to look at these sources and built the article but in the long run its good for the article if it has a good backing from secondary academic sources. It will be appreciated better by wikipedians as well as other users who read this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the Primary sources - the scorpian incident and the following illness is mentioned in detail in Richard Weiss article as well as in Kent. We can use these references. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Just attempted some more. I have left some primary sourced info in as it seemed uncontroversial, but some of it was hard to understand. Please have a look. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rumiton, I added more details about his 1940 proclamation from Kent. This is another important incident from his life. It is in page 38 - Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia By Alexandra Kent. For now I have mentioned the page number range where the biography section is available online in the initial citation.
From 1968 - 2005 no Biography information is available in the secondary sources. I am not able to find even major inauguration dates after that from the Secondary sources nor important places he visited. Can we use source vahini.org or Radio Sai source just to mention important events in his life like the important places he visited or some thing like the 'Sundaram was inaugurated in such and such year etc. This is just to provide some important information to users with out conveying any point of view?. This will be the same issue when we go to the Belief and Ashram section. In the Wp:RS discussion I had raised this issue about why we may need to use the official sites just to provide user information not available in secondary sources just like other religious sites which uses their official websites for such information. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. It shouldn't be a problem if it is bare facts, and not "unduly self-serving." You might also write, "According to his organisation..." I will be busy for a few days. See you then. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers / citation style

Radiantenergy, thanks for citing the secondary sources. [9] However, please make sure you always give the page number for each citation, otherwise it is difficult to verify the text. Could you add the missing numbers? It would also make sense to use citation templates like {{cite book}} when citing a book. --JN466 02:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Split things like Babb? For example:<ref name="BabbLawrence123">{{cite book}} and
<ref name="BabbLawrence456to457">? Esowteric+Talk 10:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Things like "Haraldsson, op. cit, pp. 43" are not the way to go. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, if we're keeping some of the references to reliably sourced web pages, it would be better to use {{cite web}} as apart from anything, bare URLs are prone to WP:LINKROT. Esowteric+Talk 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Puttaparthi

If anyone can look for a secondary source for the developments that have taken place there, please do. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The bias comments Comments pertaining to false claims of Sai Baba should not be put on there; they must be 100% proven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.244.168 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias Views

Only 100% factual info should be made; not false info by false devotees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.244.168 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. If you get yourself a user page and log on you are welcome to join the discussion. Rumiton (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

an account is not a prerequisite to a view... if you can make a comment, you are welcome to...

J929 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. It is just very difficult to have a conversation with a number, especially when there are several of them at once. Rumiton (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of primary sources

I notice a lot of information from organisation and devotee sources is being reintroduced into the article. This is in contradiction of the above warning from administrars to keep the article based on secondary sources, and the banner on the article page which states, This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (September 2009) Please follow these guidelines and remove these additions. I will be back to help more by the end of the week. Rumiton (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored banners

The shortening currently being done by some editors is welcome, but there are still multiple issues with this article, especially the use of primary sources. This issue will not go away. Please leave the banners there until agreement is reached. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I will make a start in compacting and neutralising the lead and biography. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The main allegations should be mentioned in the summary: sexual abuse of young men and fake miracles, because this has been mentioned in nearly all important publications since 2000. Andries (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The Summary should be neutral in tone with out pushing any point of view.
  • Allegations are still a very minority view compared to the vast number of positive and neutral sources published by academics and other well reputed sources on Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Sathya Sai Baba was not found to be guilty of any crime or allegation in any court of Law. The only known allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba which went to Court is the 'Alaya Rahm Case'. Alaya Rahm who claimed allegations of abuse in the 2004 BBC documentary self dismissed his allegation case on "Sathya Sai Baba" in the Superior Court in 2006. As per the results of the case he cannot file a case on Sathya Sai Baba once again either in U.S or in India for the same claims.
  • The old BBC 2004 documentary which focussed on 'Alaya Rahm' allegation was asked to be removed from the article in the WP:RS discussion due to BLP concerns due to the above reason.
The Summary is quite well written and neutral in tone and is sourced to academic sources now and it should remain that way. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reputable sources treating the allegations form a clear majority of the sources after the year 2000, even without the BBC. Do you want me to re-produce a list? For example, the only major publication in the USA was by Salon.com which was heavily critical. There are no academic neutral sources who focus on the life of SSB. They all focus on the movement. For example, Palmer treats the allegation by assessing the impact on the movement, not by assessing the biographical aspect of the allegations.
  • The BBC documentary which was very well researched is not obsoleted by a minor publication. The BBC documentary was never retracted nor was any other publication retracted that detailed the Alaya Rahm case (under a pseudonym), like Mick Brown's Divine Downfall, or the Danish state documentary. This proves that the trial that should have caused the obsoleteness of the BBC documentary is of minor significance.
  • Even the lonely planet guides have a very short entry on SSB/Puttaparhi mentioning the "big controversy". To summarize, it Radiant's energy's view that the controversies are a small minority is completely misguided. Andries (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Andries, My views are very clear. I keep wondering why you are here inspite of being banned from this article. Its no surprise to me that you are still pushing your personal agenda of adding more and more criticism into this article
  • Allegations of abuse against Sathya Sai Baba is a recent event since 2000. None of the sources written before like Babb, Kent mention about these allegations. After 'Alaya Rahm' went public with his abuse allegation in 2000 all the allegation stories started circulating in the internet. 2000 - 2005 was the peak time of allegation reports. Sources published then talked about these allegations. Since 2006 after 'Alaya Rahm' self dismissed his allegation case in Superior Court these stories have diminished too. Even the reference we use for Criticism section are old allegation reports printed between 2000 - 2006.
  • The statement that BBC documentary did not retract hence the trial is of minor significance is your personal opinion. This does not really undermine the trial. Anyway BBC is known for its controversial Bias comments and probably does not care. There's even an article 'Criticism of BBC' in wikipedia. But in wikipedia we care about BLP articles and lay emphasis on NPOV. Our objective here is not to project minority view like a majority view.
  • 'Allegation' reports are very minority view compared to the hundreds of positive and neutral academic and printed secondary sources on Sathya Sai Baba. These allegation reports probably had a minor impact on the movement. As per the new 2008 academic publication by Smriti Srinivas, Professor, Anthropology - 'In the Presence of Sai Baba (2008)' estimates the followers to be 10 million which is much higher than the earlier 1999 estimate.
The Criticism section covers these allegation reports printed during 2000 - 2005. We have enough criticism already. This is a BLP article it should be neutral in tone. Don't keep pushing your personal agenda into this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The main allegations are not responsible for Sai Baba's popularity and fame. The allegations have not been proven nor have the one time stories been followed up on since the BBC documentary in 2004. The story has died. To include these allegations in the summary would give way more importance than is justified as they are fanciful and are clearly an extreme minority point of view. This is proven by the fact that the subject's life has not been impacted what so ever by the allegations and nothing has ever come of any allegation. Nothing has happened. The allegations are mentioned in the body of the article. As it stands now the section is already too big. For example Obama is being accused of not being a U.S. citizen and many other things. A good portion of people believe this, but it has not been proven. Fox news has done countless negative stories on Obama. All the crazy things said about Obama mentioned in many news organizations are NOT in his summary.Sbs108 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your point re the Obama article is well taken, but it isn't up to us to measure the impact of allegations on a subject's life and notability. In Obama's case, reputable sources examined and dismissed the importance of those allegations against him. Hopefully our sources will help us with Sai Baba as well. Rumiton (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Urban (2003) mentions the allegations. At present, there is no criticism at all in the lede, which surely is not appropriate. --JN466 22:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So far I have looked at a number of scholarly material by different authors on Sathya Sai Baba. Even the few scholars who deal with these allegations do not mention the allegations in the lead / summary. Even Urban in his book does not mention the allegations in the Summary / lead it is only introduced in the later part of the article. These scholars try to keep the article in a neutral tone with out pushing any point of view.
  • When the academics have treated these allegations with a low profile introducing the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' with other aspects of his life and his movement. I don't see the need to introduce this article with a particular critical point of view. I think it is appropriate the way it is summarised now backed by academics and other scholarly sources and introduces the subject in a neutral tone. Urban reference can be used in the Criticism section. Adding the allegations and starting the article with a critical note of unproved allegations is a step back from producing an article with a neutral tone. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Radiantenergy. Neutrality goes both ways. Both critics and admirers of Sai Baba need to realize this. Unsubstantiated allegations have no place in the lead. Boromir123 (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The allegations are just as much a part of why Sathya Sai Baba is noticeable as anything else. Now, if it described in the first line of the article the allegations of sexual abuse, it would be improper. However, a brief overview of said allegations is perfectly acceptable, as the opening should be a short summary of the article as a whole, hitting the key points. The fact that it is a "minority view" is irrelevant, because that section takes up a significant portion of the article. Andries, My views are very clear. I keep wondering why you are here inspite of being banned from this article. He is here because he is allowed to have and share his opinion on the way this article is written, even if he isn't allowed to edit it. Being snippy toward other contributors isn't really helping to make the article better, is it? Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I still feel they do not belong in the lede. It is very wrong to put them in the lede of a BLP where allegations have not been proven. Not only that there has never been a case anywhere in the world nor has anyone anywhere have any case against him in a court of law. Many negative untrue things are said about famous people, especially ones with influence power. The minority view here is very relevant. Facts show Sai Baba only doing good. If people can show proof of wrongdoing then let them. The criticism section is already to big as it is.Sbs108 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe we've had a similar discussion before, and the same points were made. I again would suggest Michael Jackson's article as an example of a well known public figure that was accused, but never convicted, of sexual misconduct. The allegations are covered in the opening. When he was alive, the information was still there, meaning you can't cry BLP to ensure that negative information about Satyha Sai Baba is kept out of the lede. The controversies surrounding him can't be swept under the rug, nor can we just ignore them. I maintain that a brief overview of the allegations and controversies be placed in the opening paragraphs, as that is exactly what the lede is supposed to be, a brief summary of the page's content. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson had a court case, there was never a court case in the Sai Baba's case. Michael Jackson is not a relevant example at all. The word "Controversial" in the lede is enough explanation which will be further explained in the body of the article. I don't have a problem with the word controversial in the lede because it is neutral. To put the allegations in the lede is wrong and cast a ridiculous shadow over the article of a man where facts say he does only good. I am completly against mention in the lede. Its unjust and wrong. As I said before, Hitler's lede doesn't have any negative information in his lede and his crimes are well documented and proven. He is know as an incarnation of evil yet reading his lead you wouldn't think he is a such a bad guy. Sbs108 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are comparing SSB to Hitler? ...cast a ridiculous shadow over the article of a man where facts say he does only good. I am completly against mention in the lede. Its unjust and wrong.You're reply shows a complete lack of neutrality, as your views are obviously slanted in favor of Sathya Sai Baba. I reiterate that the fact that he was never convicted is not relevant to how the information is presented. He has a history of accusations against him, and an entire section devoted to said allegations, so leaving them out of the lead, which is a brief summary of the article's content, shows a clear bias in favor of SSB. When trying to be as neutral as possible, we should avoid picking and choosing what negative and positive material is included where. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 07:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Sbs108. Charges were filed against Michael Jackson and although he was later acquitted, he settled out of court. Boromir123 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Claims"

When I read the repeated use of the word "claim", for example in the section "Claims of materialization and other miracles", I get the impression that the article is pushing a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) POV that these claims are unfounded. Of course, they may well be unfounded. Esowteric+Talk 20:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that wordings using repeated instances of "claim" are clumsy (see Wikipedia:WTA#Claim). There is no question that Sai Baba "performs" miracles; I am all for using a wording that doesn't ram the claim of fakery down readers' throats in every sentence. (On the other hand, we should not endorse his claims either.) --JN466 01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
For Claim, my thesaurus suggests maintain, assert, say, state, declare, argue, allege, aver, announce, affirm and proclaim. For Perform it has do, carry out, execute, achieve, make and present. Maybe we can find some phrases that will be equally or more helpful. Rumiton (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to criticism

Was there really an official letter from the Government of india signed by the PM and others as mentioned in this section? If so where is the letter? the citation provided is to geocities(which no longer exists). Anyway, a non-existant page in geocities cannot be considered a reliable source, can it? Jay (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Geocities never was a reliable source in itself, though in the case of fully cited documents that had been deemed to be reliable, one could indicate in the reference that a copy was available online there (or maybe at the internet archive)? Esowteric+Talk 10:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There was such a letter. Then-Indian prime minister Vajpayee is a devotee of Sai Baba's. [10]. (By the way, that book is a good source for us to use as well.) --JN466 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography section

User:Sbs108 has twice removed an introductory comment about the difficulty of arriving at a neutral biography for Sai Baba, saying in the edit summary that "I have never seen a biography start out like this. This doesn't make any sense. It doesn't flow, if anything it belongs at the end not the beginning."

In the case of Sai Baba, such comments are the norm at the beginning of any discussion of his biography. The book I just linked in the previous section (which is not the book that was cited in the removed section) contains just such a comment at the beginning of its biography: [11]

While I'll happily grant that what we had was stylistically clumsy, the fact remains that we need to have such a statement at the beginning of our biography. I invite editors to come up with something that makes the point more elegantly. --JN466 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can everyone see this google books preview? (If not, I can type it out.) --JN466 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I can see it, J. Providing it's sourced, I don't personally see anything wrong with or unusual about an introductory paragraph / preamble at the beginning of the biography section that sets the scene for what follows, if it fairly represents both sides. It's something I've heard at the beginning of lectures, for example, and coincidentally I recently came across an example "One of the great challenges that anyone interested in Hannibal Fogg finds, is that discerning the truth about his complicated life can be bewildering ..." at the beginning of an online biography. Esowteric+Talk 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


there is a Sathya Sai Baba sandbox.

J929 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It will still need more work, but I would like to see a balance for with sceptics asserting that they are conjuring tricks. Something like, while devotees consider them evidence of divinity. Babb (162) says as much. I agree that the note that the facts of the subject's life have been overcome by hagiography needs to be there, lest the adulatory myths be taken as encyclopedic fact. There is no problem with adding the mythology once the caveat has been put in place. Rumiton (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done [12] --JN466 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Added a note on hagiography as well (2nd sentence of bio section). --JN466 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haraldsson

At present, most of the miracles section is sourced to Haraldsson. I do not believe this is WP:DUE. For reference:

Haraldsson deserves his place in that section, but should be given less space, and other scholars' views added (Babb, Urban, Palmer, etc.). --JN466 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede

Since we are now discussing this, I am starting a new section. The lede currently says, "He is described by his devotees as an avatar, godman,[3] spiritual teacher and miracle worker.[1][4][5][6][7] He has claimed to be the reincarnation of the great Maharashtrian saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi whose teachings were an eclectic blend of Hindu and Muslim beliefs.[8] He is described as "an extraordinarily compelling orator, gifted with wit."[9] ... A cultural icon in his home country, Sai Baba has drawn presidents and prime ministers from India and beyond; in 2002, he claimed to have followers in 178 countries.[14]"

So we have a full range of positive views, but no critical views. We must not restrict our coverage of Sai Baba's reception in the lede to Sai Baba's own views and the view of devotees and fans. If editors could draft something to summarise the criticism, that would be appreciated. For reference, here is the lead paragraph, and second paragraph, of Urban's 20-page article:

With his chubby cherubic face, cast in a seeming eternal smile and surrounded by a mass of curly black hair, Sathya Sai Baba (b. 1926) stands out as perhaps India’s most recognisable, most popular and most infamous of gurus. Known above all for his miraculous powers and his apparent ability to produce all variety of material objects, sweets, jewelry and trinkets out of nothingness, Sai Baba has quickly become among the most powerful religious leaders, particularly among India’s affluent, well-educated middle classes. Any traveler in India knows that his image, displayed on posters, billboards, postcards and book jackets, is inescapable and that he is surely one of the most dominant cultural icons in all of the subcontinent. It has been said, not unbelievably, that the only person in India who can draw larger crowds than Sai Baba is the Prime Minister. Recently, moreover, his fame has also spread to the West, where he has become a favourite guru of international celebrities like Isaac Tigrett, multi-millionaire founder of the ‘Hard Rock Cafe´’ empire, even as he has been accused of child abuse and voted one of the top five ‘scum-bag gurus’ by a recent Internet web-site.1

Yet rather strikingly, Sai Baba has seldom been taken seriously by modern scholarship and has for the most part been dismissed as, at best, a passing spiritual fad and, at worst, a dangerous charlatan and paedophile. The few scholars who have looked seriously at Sai Baba have for the most part taken one of two positions: either an extremely reductionistic attack and ‘unmasking’ of Sai Baba’s supernatural claims, as we see, for example, in the caustic critique of B. Premanand,2 or a fairly uncritical, largely sympathetic and apologetic stance, explaining Sai Baba’s miracles in terms of traditional Hindu religious patterns, as we see for example in the more generous interpretation offered by Lawrence Babb (1986); see also Klass 1991; Swallow 1982; White 1972). Though there are numerous devotional works (see Brooke 1979; Hislop 1978; Kasturi 1970–77; Ruhela and Robinson 1976), there has to date been no single critical study of Sai Baba’s life and works in light of their more concrete historical social, political and economic context in late twentieth century India.

--JN466 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Jayen, Urban article was published in 2003. In the last 7 years several things have changed related to Sathya Sai Baba and his movement. In the above paragraph from Urban there are some outdated information which does not hold good anymore.
  • In contrast to Urban 2003 demographics that the followers are predominantly from India, the 2008 demographic from Smriti Srinivas, Professor of Anthropology - "In the Presence of Sai Baba: Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement" defines the demographic of the followers as a a global following from Japan to South Africa and as a "transnational phenomenon".
  • Urban stated that "Sai Baba has seldom been taken seriously by modern scholarship and has for the most part been dismissed as, at best, a passing spiritual fad". This is not true any more. Now there are many scholarly work on Sathya Sai Baba and his movement and Sathya Sai Baba is definitely not dismissed as a "passing spiritual fad". This is another incorrect statement which does not hold anymore
  • In the Urban article he stated that Sathya Sai Baba is accused based off by a recent Internet web-site? There are millions of websites on the internet. Many of them are original research. There is not even a solid backing for the accusation?

Overall I feel that we need to find more updated better academic source. The existing references from this also has to be corrected. Even with in a single paragraph I see so many incorrect information and outdated information with this book published 7 years ago. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


I don't think criticism in the lede is appropriate. It is appropriate in the body of the article at a minimum. Most famous people these days are accused of something. Some allegations were levelled between 2000-2004. Nothing was ever proven nor was there any case against Sai Baba anywhere in the world. There has been new nothing written anywhere since then. Sai Baba is thriving just as before. The good Sai Baba is doing is tremendous and this is all documented in reliable sources. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/world/a-friend-in-india-to-all-the-world.html?pagewanted=1 Unproven Accusations only require a mention in the article. People hate Obama just because they don't like him, it has nothing to do with reason. The same with Sai Baba, some people don't like Sai Baba because he is powerful and does good. Hitler was a mass murderer, there is no criticism in his lede and his crimes are proven, so how can you justify criticism in the lede of a BLP. We have to go with facts here. The facts show he is only doing good.This can be proven by going to his free hospitals and schools and water project. These projects have been written at length by world press. Anybody can get anybody to say lies about someone and espcially someone with so much influence and power. I don't know who you are regarding as modern scholarship, but a living Guru is hardly ever taken seriously. Sai Baba is taken very very seriously otherwise there wouldn't even be any controversy. Controversy isn't a bad thing as Jesus was very controversial in his day and in fact had more who hated him then were his followers. People who want criticism in the lede are clearly biased and have an agenda otherwise they would be satisfied with the criticism already in the article.Sbs108 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the Summary or lede should be concise. As per the BLP rules it should be neutral in tone with out advocating any point of view either devotees nor critics.
  • Can we have some thing like this with out pushing or emphasizing any point of view?
"Sathya Sai Baba (pronounced /sæt jæ saɪ bæ bæ/) (Telugu: సత్య సాయిబాబా), (born Sathyanarayana Raju on 23 November 1926 [1]) is a South Indian[2] guru, religious figure and educator. The Sathya Sai Organization reports that there are an estimated 1,200 Sathya Sai Baba Centers in 114 countries worldwide.[10][11] The number of active Sathya Sai Baba adherents was estimated in 1999 to be around 6 million, although followers' estimations are far higher.[12] Since there are no formal ties of membership, the actual figure may never be known."
The rest of the information can be moved to their relevant sections. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LEDE, if there is criticism in the article, there should be criticism in the lede. A scholarly source from 2003 is recent; we are also using Babb, who wrote more than 20 years ago. Even so, if there are more recent scholarly sources that we could use, please provide a list (author, publisher, year) below. The accusation of charlatanerie at least is notable enough (and perennial enough) to be mentioned in the lede. --JN466 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Babb was written 20 years ago but there's a world of difference between Babb's and Urban's work. Urban's statements such as 'Sathya Sai Baba is a passing spiritual fad" and other discrepancies I mentioned earlier proves that we need to go for a better source.
  • There are many academic sources out there. We have to pick them carefully make sure they don't have outdated information nor depends on original research websites. For Eg there is an academic source from Michael James Spurr - "SATHYA SAI BABA AS AVATAR “HIS STORY” and the History of an Idea. This heavily uses attack website such as Saiguru.net, home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba etc. These are attack websites which were banned by the arbitration commitee as they are full of original research. Hence its very important to pick up correct academic source.
  • Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 116-124: Babb is well respected and can definitely be used for the Miracle section as well as the other sections.
  • I have been working with this article and know my sources well. Sathya Sai Baba is notable for many things such as his miracles, Movement etc. But he is not notable as "Charlatan". None of the academic sources by Swallow, Charles S. J. White, Klass, Babb Lawrence, David Bowen, Kent and Richard Weiss calls him that. Premananda was the one to call Sathya Sai Baba as "Charlatan". Premananda also has made ridiculous claims such as Sathya Sai Baba is a "Mafia Man" though he has no known connections to Mafia. Premananda and his book has been declared "Unreliable" in the earlier mediation discussion as it is full of original research. This argument takes us back to picking good academic sources which rely not on internet websites for his contents but on good scholarly material.
  • Today we have Criticism section later we may even merge it with the rest of the article as Rumiton proposed initially. (Eg: BLP articles such as Prem Rawat). Its not necessary that every BLP should have a "Criticism" section. Hence I still hold the view that the lede should be neutral with out any point of view either devotees or Critics. We can move the devotee views and other information to relevant sections. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I pointed out earlier the reason why we need to pick up our academic sources carefully. Spurr's paper heavily relies on attack websites such as 'Saiguru.net, home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba etc. These are attack websites which were banned by the arbitration commitee as they are full of original research. We should not use Spurr paper for this article.
Seems to me that if reliable sources tell us that the allegations that have been levelled against the subject have impacted on his notability, then a short sentence to that effect should certainly go in the lede. How about we proceed through the article first and then summarise what we end up with? Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed a sentence from the lede: [13]. Kent is not talking about Sai Baba here, but about a Malaysian disciple of his. --JN466 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is the current status of the lede: [14]. I've added a mention of his charity work, as well as a description of his miracles and the controversy surrounding them. --JN466 02:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


wikipedia policy says, "explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Notable controversies. debate of the manifestation of vibhuti or other articles is not very 'notable'. there has much more dicsussion on his name, Sai Baba. Babb, a reputable source himself, says Sai Baba is not a parlour trick magician, thus debuncting any validity to the use of this 'point' in the lede.

there was no decision in using 'controversial' in the lede. most allegations and negative press (other than a moon appearances in 2007) have all but vanished. thus making a current lede more suitable with the older probelmatic opinion of Sathyanarayana's use of the name Sai Baba.

BLP sates, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, if there are no notable controversies, then there is no need to be sensationalists and include criticism and blame that has long ago been dismissed.

how does wikipedia policy allow for the obligation to include a controversy in the lede of a BLP?

a concern of the curent lede is the incorporation of so much information on the Sathya Sai Baba organization. an entire section was moved to the Sathya Sai Baba movement page and that is where most of the current info should be also placed.

why are the demographics of devotees so important as to find place in the lede?

J929 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, there is a notable controversy around his miracles.
  • Spurr, an academic and Sai Baba follower whom Radiantenergy recommended above, begins his 2007 thesis, "I begin this thesis with a brief account of my meetings with popular South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba (1926- ) and very brief a discussion of recent fraud and sexual abuse allegations that have been made against him."
  • Here is a 2006 Guardian article calling him "possibly India's most controversial holy man": [15]
  • Urban (2003, see above) says, "In particular, Sai Baba is especially well known—and controversial—for his ability to manifest gold jewelry, necklaces, watches, precious gems and other small valuables."
  • Here is an Indian source, IBN Live, calling him controversial: [16]
  • Here another IBN article, mentioning the controversy around the miracle working: [17]
Please accept that Sai Baba is controversial, and that there is a controversy surrounding his miracle working. Babb (who wrote more than 20 years ago) correctly points out that Sai Baba is more than a parlour magician and explains the role these miracles play in devotees' faith in Sai Baba and in their spiritual journey, but he is very careful not to endorse Sai Baba's claims. --JN466 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I will like to clarify my statement about Spurr. I gave the example of Spurr to show that we cannot pick up any academic source. Spurr relies heavily on attack / critical websites hence should not be used for this article. Even other sources which relies on internet websites for its content should not be used.
  • I will also like to point out some references supporting the miracle claims. Please see the Miracle Section. Haraldsson's research yielded many extraordinary testimonies of reported miracles. Some of the reported miracles attributed to Sathya Sai Baba included levitation (both indoors and outdoors), bilocation, physical disappearances, changing granite into sugar candy, changing water into another drink, changing water into gasoline, producing objects on demand, changing the color of his gown into a different color while wearing it, multiplying food, healing of acute and chronic diseases, visions, dreams, making different fruits appear on any tree hanging from actual stems, controlling the weather, physically transforming into various deities and physically emitting brilliant light.[96] Haraldsson wrote that the largest allegedly materialized object that he saw was a mangalsutra necklace, 32 inches long, 16 inches long on each side. Mick Brown -The Spiritual Tourist, Ch: "The Miracle In North London says his experiences with manifestations of vibuthi, from Sathya Sai Baba's pictures in houses in London were not fraudulent or the result of trickery.
  • In the book Modern Miracles: An Investigative Report on These Psychic Phenomena ... By Erlendur Haraldsson has made reference to the "DD Tape Unveils Baba Magic" article by Deccan Chronicle (Criticism section). Deccan Chronicle claimed that it was a sleight-of-hand. Haraldsson states that from the film / tape its not clear if it was a a sleight-of-hand as claimed by Deccan chronicle. He explains the reasons / difficulties faced by researchers in making such a conclusion from the film / tape from Deccan Chronicle. Google link (Page 300) Conclusion about DD tape: http://books.google.com/books?id=6wqmy4z3428C&pg=PA300&dq=The+analysis+of+the+sai+Baba+film&lr=&ei=qjVVS-2aOIjuzQTwx9ieCw&cd=1#v=onepage&q=The%20analysis%20of%20the%20sai%20Baba%20film&f=false
  • This book deals with Miracles. Its available online. This book also talks about his teachings. We can probably use this reference for other sections too. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I apologise; I did not read your comment above about Spurr properly. But I would still point out that Spurr identifies as a Sai Baba devotee in his thesis; he has no problem addressing and discussing these claims, and neither should we. You see, you misunderstand the point about attack websites. It is right and proper that Wikipedia editors should not use them as sources. But when the same claims and controversies are discussed in mainstream television programmes, in academic writing, and in quality newspapers, surely you can see that these are discussions and notable controversies in reliable sources. It would be unreasonable to ban any scholarly or media source that discusses the same controversies that can be found on the Internet, and that is not what the arbitration committee meant. I am happy to file a request for clarification with them if you doubt it. --JN466 12:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There are several good academic sources on 'Sathya Sai Baba' like Babb, Swallow, Kent, Klass, David Bowen, Charles White, Richard Weiss, Haraldsson and many others. I still hold the view that we should use better academic source agreed by all the editors. Spurr should not be used. We can definitely find academic better source which do not rely heavily on original research websites for its content. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in pushing Spurr -- it's a doctoral thesis, after all, and I mistakenly thought that you wanted us to use it, because it was written by a follower -- but if you are suggesting that we should ignore any source -- academic research, media -- that mentions Internet claims, or claims similar to those made on the Internet, then I have to tell you that this would pervert NPOV. Is this what you are suggesting? --JN466 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I am only suggesting that when we pick academic sources we need to look what references those academic sources have used. If we know for sure that those references are websites which are purely original research or personal stories then we can try to find a better more scholarly source. We have many options now. There are many good scholarly material available. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Radiantenergy, we do not have to second-guess reputable academic sources. Urban for example is infinitely more reputable than Haraldsson. It is such scholars' judgements that we are supposed to reflect. If they consider a controversy notable, then we should consider it notable. And you know as well as I do that the allegations of charlatanerie and sexual abuse have been aired in newspapers all over the world, based on "personal stories", that academics comment on these "personal stories", and that there was a BBC television programme on these "personal stories". There is absolutely no reason to avoid these sources, is there? If you still insist that the arbcom remedy, which specified that websites with personal stories are not acceptable sources, means that editors should avoid all scholarly and media sources mentioning these controversies, I will file a request for clarification. Your call.
By the way, you misunderstand "original research". Wikipedians are not supposed to engage in original research. Original research that has been reliably published (such as in a newspaper, or scholarly journal, or by a university press) is what we are supposed to use as sources here. --JN466 16:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have already pointed out that Sathya Sai Baba is notable for his Miracles and Movement these are covered by every academic source. Sathya Sai Baba is not notable as charlatan. None of the academic sources by Swallow, Charles S. J. White, Klass, Babb Lawrence, David Bowen, Kent, Haraldsson and Richard Weiss calls him that.
  • I want to touch upon BBC. The Wikipedia RS board BBC discussion concluded with recommendatio to remove the '2004 BBC Alaya Rahm sexual abuse allegation' claims completely from the article due to BLP concerns or to supplement information about the '2006 Alaya Rahm Self dismissed allegation lawsuit on Sathya Sai Baba'. As per this RS recommendation BBC allegations have been used to the extend its required and supported by 'Alaya Rahm Self Dismissed Allegation lawsuit'.
  • We don't have to go through the same sources again and again. I request new editors working here to please familiarise with the earlier talk page archive discussions, WP:RS source discussions related to this article and earlier mediation discussions related to Sathya Sai Baba article. We can move on to other sections which can use extra backing if available from secondary sources such as the 'Beliefs and Practices of Devotees Section'. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As for claims of sleight-of-hand vs. genuine miracles, there is no problem. Per NPOV, we report Haraldsson's views as well as other views, in proportion of their prevalence in reliable sources. What we cannot do per WP:NPOV is decide which view is right, and only portray that view to the exclusion of others. --JN466 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider the hospitals, universities, water projects and numerous other humanitarian projects and events (world wide) that Sathya Sai Baba is associated with. why then are 'popular and controversial' the first adjectives to describe him? 'Please accept that Sai Baba is controversial' is a falicious statement. the media may present views of people saying they feel he is controversial but is that why he is 'notable'? Howard Stern, a media personality whose career is riddled with fines from the FCC due to off color remarks is not described as controversial.
'there is a controversy surrounding his miracle working' is true but again, is that why he is notable?

it is not our job to be sensationalist

Sathya Sai Baba's notability is not based on his manifestations. if there are more sources refering to Sathya Sai Baba as an Avatar, then should that adjective not take precedence... nor mentioning the humanitarian projects and amount of people benefitted by these works before sensationalism?

he is not a ride at six flags, he is a person. and this is a BLP.

it is not our job to be sensationalist and wikipedia is not a tabloid paper
does 'popular and controversial' reflect these wikipedia ideals?

  • why are deomgraphic statistics included in the lede? are thy inferring something? what corelation do they have with Sathya Sai Baba himself? are they not better placed in the Sathya Sai Baba movement page?

J929 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WELLKNOWN for when controversies should be raised in a BLP and when not. --JN466 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As for demographics, I'll try to streamline the info in the lede a little. I agree it could be said in less words. On the other hand, I think it would be nice to mention some of his prominent disciples -- not in the lede necessarily, but in the article. I think many people in the West are unaware that Indian presidents and prime ministers like Vajpayee etc. have been disciples. I'd appreciate editors compiling a list of major disciples here; we can then see which of these figures we can find third-party sources (not SSB websites) for. --JN466 03:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances of Birth

The articles says that "His birth, which his mother Eswaramma asserted was by immaculate conception". I think the should probably say "virgin birth" instead of immaculate conception. I could be wring that is why I didn't make the change. I am unfamiliar with the subject and the sources, but I understand that immaculate conception only applies to the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. I marked it with a [citation needed] tag.--Adam in MO Talk 09:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Wikipedia article I think you are right. It seems to be a mismix of two religious concepts. I have made the change. Rumiton (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


wikipedia states "Virgin birth (or more strictly, virginal conception) is a form of miraculous birth in which the mother is a virgin and no male seed in any form is involved." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_%28mythology%29

  • Sai Baba (Sathyanarayana) has older brothers and sisters, therefor it is safe to stay, his mother was not a virgin at the time

the original article states, "The Mother (Eswaramma) said, “I had dreamt of Sathya Narayana Deva and she cautioned me that I should not be frightened if something happened to me through the Will of God. That morning when I was at the well drawing water, a big ball of blue light came rolling towards me and I fainted and fell. I felt it glided into me”. Swami (Sathya Sai Baba) then turned to Rama Sarma with a smile and said, “There you have the answer, I was not begotten. It was Pravesa, not Prasava”."

On wikipedia's article for 'siddhi'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi its states... Parkaya Pravesha: Parkaya Pravesh means one’s soul entering into the body of some other person....

a search for the definition of 'pravesa' yields the definition "entering" (also found in music and dance)

it is said Lord Rama also took birth this way.

a more appropriate wording may be necessary as the current term "virgin birth" does not hold true according to definition

J929 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Is there a term in English for this method of conception? Rumiton (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of a specific term, I have changed virgin birth to "conceived miraculously." Hope that seems acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for Pioneer claims?

It's been awhile. Is there a reliable source for the claims made in The Pioneer?

For those who are new to this, Sandhya Jain, the author of this article, wrote in another article that she believes African Americans only have the right to vote because of the Voting Rights Act. She is demonstrably ignorant about American law. Had she done 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia, she would have realized she was wrong. For whatever reason, she chose not to.

Wikipedia demands verifiability. Facts are here not merely because they are true, but because they are verifiably true. Bhimaji (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bhimaji:
  • Isn't reliable source noticeboard conclusion that "Daily Pioneer Reference" is reliable source isn't enough?
I can provide more archive links of earlier discussions related to the same topic.
  • Decisions by independent wikipedians outside the project by User:Priyanath, User:Jehochman and User:RegentsPark to use daily Pioneer as reference must be implemented
  • Either old BBC references has to be removed as per the above discussion and proposal by User:Priyanath and User:RegentsPark or Daily Pioneer reference can be used to fulfill WP:BLP.
  • I am pasting User:Priyanath conclusions for easy reference.
User:Priyanath Final conclusion for removing BBC or using Daily Pioneer if BBC is allowed.
  • 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)
  • To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiantenergy Priyanath wrote " I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right". Please stop using Wikipedia policies selectively. In this case, we disagree about the weight and interpretation of a primary source. (I think it has no weight.) The BBC was and is a good reliable secondary source and the Alaya Rahm case was never retracted by any of the several reliable sources that had covered it. You failed to mention on the reliable source noticeboard that the BBC was not the only source that had covered the Alaya Rahm case and that none of these sources has retracted the Alaya Rahm case. Andries (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Andries, You seemed to have missed all the details from the earlier discussion. If you read the earlier archive carefully you will see that I have mentioned that Alaya Rahm case was covered in Seduced documentary, Daily Telegraph along with BBC.
  • The fact that BBC nor Daily Telegraph did not retract the statement does not change matters. In most cases unless there is a Class Action Lawsuit you may not hear any retractions or apology. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Andries. Primary sources tell us nothing at all; they have to be interpreted by reliable secondary sources before we can even look at them. Both sides of any argument should support this policy. It prevents unreliable and biased interpretations of perhaps unguarded speech or writing. A two-edged sword indeed. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton, I will like to clarify on that. We have n't mentioned the Primary source - Superior Court website with 'Alaya Rahm case anywhere in the article. We have only used the Secondary reliable source 'Daily Pioneer' covering the Alaya Rahm trial in the article as concluded by outside wikipedians.
I requested reopening the the case of the BBC TV documentary (Alaya Rahm/Sam Young) at the reliable noticeboard because I think that Radiantenergy gave incomplete information the first time. [18] Andries (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you read the archive carefully it has all the information. The neutral outside wikipedians clearly understood the case. This case was discussed for almost a week.
  • The conclusions by User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark and User:Jehochman must be upholded.
  • If the BBC with 'Alaya Rahm' allegations are used in the article then the Secondary source Daily Pioneer covering the 'Alaya Rahm' lawsuit must also be mentioned. Because Allegation Lawsuit was self dismissed by Alaya Rahm. And the trial did not find any wrong doing by Sathya Sai Baba. This is essential to avoid BLP violation in the article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will raise a notice on the BLP noticeboard, because assessing BLP problems has to do with weighing sources against each other. One single source denying allegations does not suddenly cause a BLP problem when there is a long list of sources that state these allegations. Assessing the reliability of one source is different from weighing sources. Andries (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Andries, Yes these allegations were published in different sources between 2000 - 2005. Nobody is denying that. Infact the article clearly mentions the 'Alaya Rahm' allegations. But when these allegations were taken to Court by 'Alaya Rahm' in 2006 nothing was found. Alaya Rahm self dismissed his own allegation case.
  • Why is it that you wanted to only mention the allegations but don't want to mention the following Self dismissed Alaya Rahm Allegation lawsuit? We have reliable secondary source Daily Pioneer covering the lawsuit. We also have the Superior Court Website public records with the Alaya Rahm case number. (Primary Source) for the Secondary Source.
  • Clearly your views seems openly biased and one-sided due to your WP:COI with the subject. You wanted to mention only the allegations but don't want to mention about the self-dismissed trial.
  • The wikipedians who judged this case (User:Priyanath, User:Jehochman and User:RegentsPark) very reputed and well respected in the wikipedia community. I don't agree with you in taking this issue from one forum to another because you wanted only a one sided story in this article. We already had a week of discussion in the WP:RS. Three reputed wikipedians have already given their verdict and a clear BLP fix. It has to be upholded. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


why is this topic being debated again?
werent there already several discussions on it? were there any conclusions?
if yes, then why the fuss?

the BBC documentary has long been outdtaed.

  • the documentary is over 6 years old. if the BBC made a documentary on cell phones in 2004, do you with think a newer, more current documenatry would have to be made with all the advances? there have been changes in the allegations made against Sai Baba and the article should reflect that, not sit stagnant at the heels of a BBC documentary.
  • Alaya Rahm allegation lawsuit has been dropped
  • nothing has been proven in a court of law. the case drew attention because Alaya Rahm chose to pursue the allegations in a court of law. now that he dropped the charges, why should any weight be given to his 'allegations' in accordance to the BBC documentary or otherwise.

maybe, bhimaji you might try adding information to the article beyond the Criticism and controversy section...

J929 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion by Radiantenergy

I've undone the reversion by Radiantenergy. The edit he reverted seemed reasonable enough to me (it's not my edit, by the way) - it looks like 'propitiated' was used in mistake for something like 'propounded', and it was used in the original. The former word doesn't seem to make sense here, hence '[sic]' is a perfectly legitimate editorial addition. Simon Kidd (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Initially the change was made from an IPaddress with out any explanation. The context of change was n't very clear. Your explanation has made this edit more justified. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see your point. The sentence is of dubious value to the article anyway, compromised as it is by this (presumably) strangely translated verb. I understand the subject does not speak English, so we have to guess what he was really saying. Maybe a better quote could be found to illustrate Sai Baba's mission statement. Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

The state of things here is a SHAME

Was the ArbCom list of suggested sources influenced by malicious biased users, with great ability on spining?

Is Wikipedia currently being used as theirs instrument?

this is all a bunch of prejudice; I would appreciate if absolutely no criticm was made on Baba who is worshipped by all even those who falsely accuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.222.83 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Banners

the banner This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (September 2009) was removed, the biography section has been slimmed down, entire sections were moved to the Sathya Sai Baba Movement article and many details of Sathya Sai Baba's life have been removed... and the only part that hasnt changed in size is the Criticism and controversy section.


J929 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


removed It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. i dont think its needed with numerous editors working on the article. it should be safe to say all the basic ground work is covered.

J929 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

removal of It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009. for same reasons stated above.

J929 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with these banner removals but will let them stand. The article still has quite a lot of stilted English that need copy editing; it is still promotional in parts, and it still contains a lot of intricate detail. Let's keep working on these issues, with or without banners. If there is undue resistance to these attempts to make the article more encyclopedic the banners will need to go back. Rumiton (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Confidence tricksters

Any doubt that he has significant recognition and notoriety for this? None here. So include into. This aids comprehensiveness in listing all his fields of notoriety and the spectrum of varied perceptions for his contributions. Balance, in other words.ResignBen16 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for adding a category is quite high. I personally believe that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by reputable sources that SSB is a confidence trickster. But adding this is in a category is something I had never done, even when I was more or less editing this article alone, years ago. Andries (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
"Proven beyond reasonable doubt by reputable sources" isn't "quite high" enough. It is a fact WP:V beyond that of the identity of the sabbath. How good that both of us aren't gutless deluded chickenshit. With me?ResignBen16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC).
Sounds exactly like a personal opinion. Are there reputable sources that tell us that SSB is a con? Has he ever been convicted of fraud or any other crime? This is a serious charge, and in the absence of sources a living biography can't go anywhere near it, regardless of how frustrating it might be to those who believe it to be true. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You're off base. Category:Confidence trickers is under discussion, not Category:Convicted fraudster. Uri Geller's a ready example of the former. He's been sprung for the fakery. If he's later convicted, then add the latter in. Anyone sprung for fake healing, fake 'miracles', bullshit promises - just all serial bullshitters everywhere fit into the former. Who can be bothered trying to send all those types to jail? .. it don't get your donations or your dough back.ResignBen16 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
"Serial bullshitters..." I like your style. It still won't fly for a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Lack of evidence?, references? .. smell this. Do the world a favour some time and call a confidence trickster a member of Wikipedia Category:Confidence tricksters.ResignBen16 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Charles Miller (gambler) is one in the category who beat every (legal) rap they ever threw at him. Do we even have him on video? Of course not. He was what we know he was which is of the ilk of what the biographical subject of this article happens to be less honest about acknowledging, and what the category pertains to.ResignBen16 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
From the category's definition page: "Confidence tricksters are criminals who run confidence tricks—essentially deals that are too good to be true." Note no reference to 'convicted','criminal record','civil fraud judgement', or 'inquiry findings of wrongdoing'.ResignBen16 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You are wasting your time. I have watched the videos and read what I could find from researchers and elsewhere, so I have my opinion. But I am an Australian ex-Navy guy who runs a tree business. The world doesn't care what I think, which is as it should be. But if you discover that Professor Popadum from Delhi University has said that Sai Baba is a criminal confidence trickster, then we can put that in the article. Until then I am removing that category. Please do not reinsert it. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A professional magician is the best expert in this matter, though again adding the category goes too far for me, though I do not think it is indefensible. From the article "The magazine India Today published in December 2000 a cover story about Baba with allegations of fakery made by the magician P. C. Sorcar, Jr.." Andries (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No reliable sources are present ,A youtube video is not RS PC sorcar does not seem to be a qualified person Besides unverified content cannot be added to a BLPNotedGrant Talk 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The most reliable person (India's most prominent magician) in India's most reputable source (India today) calls his materializations sleight of hand. In other words he is a major fraud. Andries (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Adding sorcars view into the article is ok but adding a category is blowing his statement out of proportion and giving it undue importance We already have sorcars view in the article adding a category labels him as a trickester we cannot say that unless a qualified person gives such a statement till then Sorcars view can be considered as a fringe theory NotedGrant Talk 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorcar is a professional magician and is better qualified than anybody else to assess the claims of materializations. To say that these materialization are real is clearly a fringe theory. To say that they are fake is in accordance with all physical laws, common sense, and generally accepted science. Shall we take it to the fringe theory noticeboard? Andries (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned before You Tube and Sorcar statements are not reliable sources for pushing a libel category into this BLP article.
  • In his book - Modern Miracles - An investigative report on psychic phenomena associated with Sathya Sai Baba, Dr.Erlendur Haraldsson, Dept of Psychology, University of Iceland says that researchers have encountered difficulties in concluding if Sathya Sai Baba's miracles are a sleight of hand.
  • They analysed the Doordarshan video which claimed Sathya Sai Baba miracle as sleight of hand. They analyzed several still frame and scanned into the computer and disagreed with the claim that it is a fake materialisation. They found the video is of very low resolution and low quality. Researchers could not conclude for sure if it was a fake materialisation / sleight of hand based on the video. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • User:ResignBen16 has been pusing his POV and has been trying to add a Category:Confidence tricksters inspite of being told several times by other experienced editors this cannot be added. This category is a serious libel to the subject with out reliable sourcing. What's User:ResignBen16 source? You Tube Videos. Any body can upload a You Tube Video pushing their POV views. You Tube Videos were infact declared as unreliable source in one of the earlier WP:RS discussion. Infact from this article several You Tube were removed earlier due to lack of reliability. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would point out that the videos we removed weren't all from Youtube, and It wasn't just because of reliability, but bias as well, that they were deleted. I believe in fact that we were supposed to discuss it farther, but they went to the back burner when the article was locked several times in a few weeks over edit wars, arguments, and bad faith in general. On the matter of the matter of "confidence trickster", Wikipedia's entire basis is on what has been proven by reliable sources. Just because you "know something" doesn't make it true. Has SSB ever admitted to faking his purported miracles? No. Has it ever been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't real? No. Has it been said in reliable sources that he is faking? I don't know, and I don't much feel like searching for sources. However, the fact remains that he has never admitted to "trickery", and never will. Until such a time as there is irrefutable proof, the category should not be added. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be added and your permission isn't a prerequisite. Neither is it my unsupported personal opinion. Its letting the sources speak: the experts Sorcar and Narasimhaiah, the latter of which held the fact that Sathya Sai Baba ignored his letters to be one of several indications that his miracles are fraudulent.[1]". In the face of that would a conman's own denials and refusal to pony up under searching examination and testing: controlled, experimental, scientificly validated - bear any weight at all? Ever? Where we have truth we need never worry of libel, fortunately as well.ResignBen16 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

On the veracity of his fraudulent 'miracle' displays, WP:FRINGE view declaration has been applied for to aid proof of membership in the category.ResignBen16 (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a living person, I would lean towards avoiding disputed characterizations; WP:BLP is very important on Wikipedia, especially since Wikipedia is not a soapbox to warn the world that weirdoes who claim mircales or magic probably aren't really doing it. You may feel that turning water into wine is a fraudulent publicity stunt also, but the Marriage at Cana doesn't belong in Category:Confidence tricks and Jesus Christ doesn't belong in "Notable con artists" in Template:Confidence Tricks — and Jesus isn't even a "living person" for BLP purposes. As long as this living person has not been found officially culpable of a fraud, and has not had specific, verifiable details from reliable sources of what sequence of actions he performs that are contrary to what he claims, with verifiable reliable sources that the consensus among experts in deception (law enforcement, magicians, etc.) is that what he does is contrary to what he claims, then characterizing him with a specific derogatory label is most likely a WP:BLP violation, no matter how much he otherwise appears to stink. Claims (including categorization in whatever form) cannot be added to Wikipedia just because an editor is extra-very-sure there isn't any other logical explanation — that's WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead, explain in the article itself what he verifiable reliable sources actually see and have proof of, and how it is interpreted by verifiable reliable sources with expertise in the subject. --Closeapple (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not derogatory. They're artists and they take pride in what they do. That's why they call themselves 'con artists', and the longer the mark can be held to the con and the more heat you take holding up the con the more of a legend you are. And Jesus we didn't have on video or with first hand witnesses calling him out for sleight of hand. We have that here. Against that is only the conman's bare denials and his running away from truer tests for vindication of the issue. He's both a confidence trickster and spiritualist guru. Categorise him for both. Ample reliable sourcing and expert testimony for both plus online video in a few places where you can see it with your own eyes. It's unsatisfactory for his sole characterisation to be one and not the other.ResignBen16 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What you feel is unsatisfactory is not relevant. You have to have reliable sources that you can list on this page that affirm what you are saying. Being sure of it, and Youtube videos, are not enough. Onopearls (t/c) 04:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The matter of the reliability of the two experts on fraudulent confidence trickery/paranorma claims and conjuring (Sorcar and Narasimhaiah) is also raised here.ResignBen16 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ResignBen16, you are starting to contradict yourself. You claim "They're artists and they take pride in what they do" then talk about "the conman's bare denials." You don't appear to have found any support for your inclusion, even from editors who are openly hostile to the subject. Please look for reputable sources that concur with your opinion, otherwise stop flogging a dead horse applies. Rumiton (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ibid and op cit

Editors please note not to use these abbreviations in Wikipedia. If the original source gets deleted, all the other refs become meaningless. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices

We have Devotees consider it a great privilege to have an interview and sometimes a single person, group or family will be invited for a private interview. Later we are told that devotees are never alone with Sai Baba. We need to resolve this apparent contradiction. The secondary sources I have do not seem to mention this. Are there any that do? Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that devotees do not have private interviews is untrue. They are quite rare, I have to admit, except for attractive young men. Andries (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Andries statement that its given only to men and not to families or groups. Private interviews are given to family members, groups and also to single person. For instance in Howard Murphet book 'Man of Miracles' talks about private interviews. Also Phyllis Krystal in her book talks about her private interview (she and her husband) had with Sathya Sai Baba.
Rumiton, You may find reference to private interviews probably only in devotee's books. I don't know if 'Love is my Form' or Arnold Schulman has any reference to it. You may not find this reference in scholarly sources. However we can check Harldsson as he has interviewed a number of followers. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
SSB has publicly stated that he does not have private interviews with women. Andries (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Radiantenergy, for the following, though the dilemma remains.
Both the statements are right. Private Interviews are given to families or groups or individuals. The later statement by Ashok Bhagani is also right but its not fully mentioned in the article. That's what caused this confusion. Here is the full statement from the Payal Nair article. "Mr Bhagani also stated that when devotees are selected by Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room, and this is especially the case when women and children meet him.". But in the article only the first part of the statement is mentioned. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Rumiton (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC) This probably isn't helpful, mainly as it is not a secondary source, but also because it does not say how long this practice has been in force. The current criticism section has been hacked about until it makes little sense. We need to describe the allegations properly before inserting the organisation's/devotees' refutations. This denial of any private interviews can go into that part. Rumiton (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Criticism Section: This section already has an extensive list of sourced criticism of the subject based on internet allegations. You added the following Statement:
"A number of statements have been made by male ex-devotees accusing Sathya Sai Baba of sexually abusing them when they were young men or boys."
What number of Statements? There was the case of 'Alaya Rahm' who claimed he was abused when he was a Minor in BBC. Even those allegations were never proved to be true in Superior Court. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2010(UTC)
Jed Geyerhahn also. Andries (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Neither Salon.com nor BBC has any references to Jed Geyerhahn. Allegations from negative attack web sites on Sathya Sai Baba or other sites banned from wikipedia due to lack of reliability of information are not our concern. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
And Connie Larsson? Allegations don't need to have been proved true to impact on the subject's notability, gossip does that all by itself. Through all this, please bear in mind that all I know about the subject comes from this article, plus some older research someone sent me by Babb, Kent, etc. I am trying to understand the subject and make the article more coherent, not push any POV either way. I think the allegations of abuse this section covers need to be introduced somehow. Either we make sub-headings like Allegations -- Abuse and -- Sleight of hand or we give an introductory sentence like the one I suggested. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Connie Larsson was not a minor during his alleged abuse. There are number of Pro Sathya Sai websites which claims that Ex-followers lied about Sathya Sai Baba and are spreading libel about him and there are also negative attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba which have their own interpretation of these allegations. Wikipedia does not really care about Pro or attack websites views.
  • From 2000 - 2005 after Alaya Rahm went public with his abuse allegations there were number of allegation stories going around in the internet. In 2005 when Alaya Rahm allegation case was self-dismissed in Superior Court and none of the allegations were proved to be true. These allegations stories in the internet as well as the print media also stopped. Pretty much these allegation stories are one time stories.
  • I don't see why we have so much criticism already based on these one time stories or internet gossips inspite of 'Alaya Rahm's allegations on Sathya Sai Baba being never proved to be true in Superior Court. Alaya Rahm request for monetary settlement was also rejected in this case. Sathya Sai Baba was not found to have commited anything wrong in this case. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be missing the point. Concerning the subject's notability, the fact that there have been allegations is the significant thing, not whether the allegations were ever proved. You are right that WP should not repeat the content of pro or attack sites, but the fact of their existence needs to be acknowledged. Rumiton (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The allegations stopped because there was no news and no new development. Andries (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracles

There has been a confused change to the comparison between SSB's miracles and those of Jesus. Can anyone who has the original (Haraldsson) source please confirm which version is correct? Rumiton (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC) In the absense of comment I have reverted this statement to a previous one which made sense. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing excessive trivia, praise in the article to improve the quality

The article is not neutral and also contains too much of trivial facts which will be only cherished by his fans. So few trivial facts has to be trimmed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castroby (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Castroby The issue of neutrality comes when there is any true evidence of bad. But in Baba's case there is no evidence of any tricks and a lot of evidence for his miracles. So there is no question of neutrality. From the evidence available Baba's miracles have been testimonied by people in contact with him. If you can say if there is any evidence (not speculation) against His miracles then the question of neutrality comes into picture. I think there is no question on neutrality in this section. Sailpra (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

if you have followed previous discussions you would have read "While self-published sites may be used, they should not be the main sources." Will Beback
where in the article are the self published sources the main source? most of the information is in context to topic laid out by the secondary source.

in your edits, you have removed info by Lawrence Babbs, who, again if you have read the discussions, was deemed reliable and "precisely those interpretations by these scholars (Babbs) that Wikipedia is interested in." --JN466

I don't think scholars can speak or even judge a spiritual person. So quoting scholars for spiritual matters is not an expected format. If wikipedia wants only scholars to write articles then I think wikipedia should contain no material on spirituality and devtion because they cannot be understood by scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailpra (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

you have not provided any edit summary info for your edits, so one is left to ask why are you removing information from reputable authors deemed reliable by other editors (and wikipedia)?

J929 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@ JN466
This is not a question of reliability.This artilce is so filled with praise it even looks like an advertisement.Is that what wikipedia wants ?
--Castroby (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: the previous comments quoted Will Beback and JN466 but were made by J929 (talk). To indent a comment, start with a colon ":", not spaces, as this breaks up the text formatting. Thanks. Esowteric+Talk 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


if you are concerned with neutrality, may i suggest cleaning up the 'Criticism and controversies' section. it has a banner stating "The neutrality of this section is disputed."

the quotes were deemed reliable as per wikipedia policy (and in discussions) and are in context of a biography (An account of a person's life written, composed, or produced by another or according to wikipedia, is a description or account of someone's life and the times, which is usually published in the form of a book or an essay, or in some other form, such as a film).

if you dont agree with the statements, that is your opinion, which wikipedia does not want. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia by clicking on the Edit this page tab in an article... It is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

the information is in line with a BLP (Biography of a Living Person)
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

the quotes are from -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_15

please also note the extensive detail in the Biography (and overall article) of the 14th Dalai Lama...


J929 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


@J929

I wish you could have read the banner which is right at the top of the article "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (September 2009)" before telling me what wikipedia want and what it doesn't want. --Castroby (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)



the information in the article is in accordance with BLP guidelines.

  • Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
whatever wikipedia wants is what wikipedia wants.

that is all that is being said.
please also note the extensive detail in the Biography (and overall article length) of the 14th Dalai Lama...


there are at least 8 different banners...

  1. Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since January 2010.
  2. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2009.
  3. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2009.
  4. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2009.
  5. It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009

in the last 2 months, at least two+ new editors have added their views and wikipedia experience to this article. why hasn't there been a change in the number banners present?

  • where are the weasel words?
  • most of the sources are now secondary sources yet a banner still reads Its factual accuracy is disputed.
  • the article has changed drastically in the last few months yet there is still a banner stating "It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling." where are the grammar problems? spelling?
  • Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking., i thought one of the issue resolved with the new edits were to make the footnote style consistent, so why is the banner still there?

with all the changes and "improvements" by new editors, why are all the banners still there?


J929 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Banners were added last year when the article was in a bad state filled with POV views. Right now the article has come a long way and has been rewritten with a number of scholarly sources. I think its time to remove some of these banners. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

i think most should of the banners should be removed.
with all the changes and 'improvements' -with the new editors- that have taken place with the article, the burden of proof should be on those who post them banners to justify why they are there. ie to what weasel words is one refering to ? with the new system of footnoting, why is there a banner that reads ' Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking." ? --check the html of the page there are many changes...


the burden of proving that the banners are there for a good reason should be on those who post them.

J929 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

religious figure to spiritual figure

changed religious figure to spiritual figure...

  • Sathya Sai Baba has no religion based on him
  • wikipedia states this article is "Portal:Spirituality"
  • the article itself states, "There is no published formal doctrine or set of rules for the Sai Baba movement." Kent, Alexandra (2005). Divinity and Diversity: A Hindu Revitalization Movement in Malaysia. Biography section available online - see google book search: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. pp. 37 - 39. ISBN 8791114403.


J929 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"My objective is the establishment of sanathana dharma, which believes in one God as propitiated by the founders of all religions. So none has to give up his religion or deity."
He wants to establish belief in God? He is a religious figure, even though he has not established his own formal religion. Bhimaji (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


  • "I have no plan to attract disciples or devotees into my fold or any fold. I have come to tell you of this unitary faith, this spiritual principle, this path of Love, this virtue of Love, this duty of Love, this obligation of Love"
  • most devotees go to Sathya Sai Baba for spiritual reasons-- not religious reasons. he has no formal religion/docturine. Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia By Alexandra Kent. [2]
  • "the imposition of rigid rules is foreign to the spirit of Sathya Sai Baba teachings pg. 167 Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition By Lawrence A. Babb[3]
  • wikipedia states...
  • religion A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  • Spirituality Spirituality can refer to an ultimate reality or transcendent dimension of the world; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his or her being, or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.” Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality: a more comprehensive self; other individuals or the human community; nature or the cosmos; or the divine realm.

it seems more accurate to say 'spiritual'.

J929 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes surely the message of Baba is very clear and he iterates every now and then that we have to become better in our religion. So Baba is not a religious figure but a spiritual figure.Sailpra (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection to the importance given to academic sources

I do not understand why Radiantenergy gives so much importance to academic sources when it is clear that none of them, with a few exceptions like Haraldson do not have the life of SSB as their focus. They (like Kent, Babb, and Owen) treat the SSB movement. The reason is clearly stated in several academic source (Palmer, Babb, Poggendorf-Kakar): the lack of reliable biographical data and the strong hagiography in the official writings about SSB. So instead of academic sources I think we have to resort to journalistic sources to write a biograpghy. Andries (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't quite agree with you there, Andries. How would journalists have access to better information than academics when they seem to have none at all? Seems to me if there is no hard information available then we don't claim otherwise, and any praiseful mythology should be identified as such. Rumiton (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
But scholars like Palmer and Babb state that they are not interested in the truth regarding SSB's life which is not surprising for anthropologists. But this attitude is totally unacceptable here. In contrast journalists are. Andries (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are just people who do journalism to earn some money and fame. So their opinions on Spiritual Leaders is very biased opinion depending on the funding they get from. E.g. BBC is backed by Vatican and so those journalists made documentaries like Secret Swami. I don't there are journalists who studied spirituality. So if there are journalists who are good in spirituality then we can quote them. But its funny to ask a journalist earning his bread to write on Spirituality.Sailpra (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you point us to some of the journalistic sources you have in mind? --JN466 16:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a few sources that have a journalistic approach to SSB's life i.e. investigating and verifying events and myths, but they are not by journalists. These are
1. Alexandra Nagel's Sai Paradox (university press article in Dutch) to some extent but more focusing on the public controversy of the early 1990s in the Netherlands Dutch google translate
2. Haraldsson: focusing on the miracles
3. Arnold Schulman's book Baba' to some extent
4. Love is my Form http://saitowers.com/limf/current.htm Devotee book (I have not read this book and do not have the money to buy it.)
Good reliable major sources regarding SSB's life are not available as several scholars (Palmer, Babb, Poggendorf-Kakar) have explicitly stated. Andries (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I think the article should say exactly that. It doesn't mean we should open the article as a battleground for conflicted editors to push for inclusion of their own favorite less-than-reliable source. At the moment the article reads like an advertisement/apology for the subject and his movement. This needs to be addressed smartly. Rumiton (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is whoever saw the miracles in close quarters and recorded His life were listed in the article. And any other book or article just do not quote their personal contact with Baba. So there is no question of 2 sides here. We are not interested in speculations or analysis like News channels! This article is to write about Life of Sai Baba that was seen by his devotees because only they were close. Sai Baba generally does not spend much of his time with so called scholars. He mostly interacts with simple people. So this article is written by such simple people and so it may not satiate the interest of complex people who just analyse and never understand! Westerners feel very uncomfortable with Indian authors because they feel that only a westener's writing is authentic and analytical. And why should we be apologitic to Baba. What mistake did he do? Do you have proof? Stop speculating and don't waste your precious time and better do something more useful to your country! Your countries need your help than this article. Sailpra (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It used to be in the article. Feel free to re-add it. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources (check Babb). Some of the current editors give far too much weight to sources by devotees or derived from them. Sources by devotees tend to be very unreliable with a few exceptions e.g.~the book Love Is My Form seems to be an exception to this rule. ~~
Andries, of the above sources, the first Dutch version is just incomprehensible in Google translation (as are most Google translations.) The second cannot be checked. Do you have a copy, including some info on the background of Haraldsson? The third is by an author described as a novelist and playwrite, who would almost certainly be found unacceptable. Perhaps the fourth might be all right, though is it not a devotee's book? Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Haraldsson is available here:
Book: Modern Miracles: An Investigative Report on These Psychic Phenomena ... By Erlendur Haraldsson
Click the following web link.
Link: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6wqmy4z3428C&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=haraldsson+sathya+sai+baba+miracles&ots=W2uI0ejGb4&sig=oRfbwOChH6d14S7Gjc3GaMAo2HY#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Radiantenergy (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Need to remove Bare URLs

This is to request all those who have interest in this article to check if each of the references provided are still pointing to valid urls and if you find any invalid references then please remove the reference along with the corresponding edit in the article but if you can find an updated url then please update the references with that new url. Sailpra (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This tool will help to identify broken links. Where links are broken, see if they can be replaced with a copy archived on the wayback machine – http://www.archive.org – before removing them. --JN466 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will use the tool and get back on any issues.Sailpra (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Making Biography look better

Dear Friends,

I agree that it was a mistake that I had made edits without discussion. But I have learnt what has to be done before an edit. So from now can we use this section to discuss about Baba's biography section instead of discussing Editor Sailpra!! Its embarassing that if someone sees so much discussion about sailpra they may think whether the this discussion page is about Baba or sailpra :). Thank YouSailpra (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Andries Please we cannot start making claims that Kasturi's book had false stories. Whenever we make a claim we have to prove it. So which story are you saying is false? Because if I could do my part in looking into it I will be happy to do that. Because Sri Kasturi is a very respectable personality and we cannot make statements on such people unless we prove them so. Also 2 more volumes 5 and 6 of Baba's biography were released in recent past and has been written by B.N.Narasimhamurthy and would like you all to go through those if you can procure them. It is a bit different from Kasturi's in the sense that references have been added to it and they are all verifiable. The reason I am asking you all to look into those books is that literally Baba's wikipedia artcile does not have much information from 1970s to 1990s. The latest biographies are worth going through so that if you are convinced that the incidents in the book are verifiable then we could include them in the biography.Sailpra (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton We have to be clear about one thing, in this world no one is interested in doing research on spiritual people because no one gets funding for such a thing. For that matter if we have to go into Master Jesus, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa etc what reliable sources can we attribute to their articles? Do we have any tertiary research on these holy men? No! Thats the reason I am saying that we may have to re-visit and re-structure wikipedia's guidelines about biographies of religious and spiritual persons. Sailpra (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to have input in the forming of Wikipedia's policies, but I think you will find that they are as they are for very solid reasons. It isn't just "spiritual" subjects that lack intelligent, neutral sources; nearly every category of human involvement could be seen that way, especially amongst its adherents. But the lack of good, secondary sources can not be used as a reason for accepting biased, primary ones. Rumiton (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Sailpra

Please comply with Wikipedia policies when you edit, particularly those relating to verifiability, WP:V and the quality of sources, WP:RS. These policies say that we cannot base an article on primary sources or non-professional sources, especially "unduly self-promoting" sources such as, in this case, the Sai Baba Organisation or the writings of devotees. Also, phrases like "It has been observed" are "weasel words" that effectively mean nothing, and are seen as a way for an editor to insert their own opinion into an article without referring to reputable secondary sources. Please discuss any future edits here. It might also be advisable to start your own userpage to make discussions easier. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The recent edits by this one article editor are very improper - including changing the encyclopedia-appropriate heading of "Claims of miracle and clairvoyance" to the very inappropriate "Miracles". Afterwriting (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sailpra, some of your edits may be of value, but the vast majority are primary sourced and promotional. Ignoring talkpage comments and trying to use Wikipedia in this way is a form of hijacking, and that must not be allowed. I have reported your actions to an administrator. Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
AfterwritingI did not change it to Miracles. It was Miracles and since there are many claims of clairvoyance I added Clairvoyance. It was you who have changed it to Claims.Sailpra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is blatantly untrue! I've checked the editing history and the heading before you starting editing was "Miracles and Clairvoyance" - I changed it to "Claims of miracles and claivoyance" and then you changed it to "Miracles" on the basis that headings should be as short as possible. Please explain why you made this false claim. Afterwriting (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Afterwriting We should not quarrel like kids here. So you agreed that it was Miracles and Clairvoyance earlier and you changed it to Claims of Miracles and Clairvoyance. Did we have any discussion on that change? Nothing you went ahead and changed it. I in fact retained this through all of my past edits. We should not fight here, we are grown up and we all should make wikipedia a good experience. Thank you.Sailpra (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this some sort of joke? It's certainly nonsense. The fact is that you made false claims about the edit history - and you have done this again by falsely claiming that you "retained" my heading change when, in fact, you change it to the POV "Miracles". If you want to be taken seriously then start being honest and act like you are "grown up" as you claim. Afterwriting (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Ohoo, by doing all this is there anything we are learning. I really appreciate the way User:Radiantenergy has written to me the do's and don'ts made me realize my mistake. He was very logical too. I am looking forth for such positive approach than the negative approaches. But did not mean anything else. Thank you.Sailpra (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton, Tell me which one is primary sourced and promotional, we can discuss. Following are the updates I have added:

1. I studied in Baba's university and I know much more about the University and so I updated the university details. 2. This year Walk for Values has taken place and I added that event. 3. The service done in the state of Orissa state of India is a very prominent service project taken up by Baba's trust and from the context of Indian state it plays a very significant role to identify the social impact of that service. 4. When we discuss Baba's miracle claims we cannot miss the book by Howard Murphet. It plays a significant role and so it is in fact more important than any other claims in the article. Please read wikipedia options about primary sources: "While secondary source material is most preferred, primary sources may also be used to report factual material provided the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source." So w.r.t facts primary sources are acceptable. I have added primary sources only to the university because the university website comes under the jurisdiction of University Grants Commission of India. The other primary source is the Walk for Values and that link does not contain any interpretation but a fact i.e news about the event. And regarding the Orissa project I did not add primary source but an article from Times Of India. So it is a tertiary source. And for the book Sai Baba - Man of Miracles, I did not add any primary source but the amazon publication site. I am ready to discuss your view points. You are always welcome. With out argument even Admin cannot do anything. Thank you for your concerns to improve the article.Sailpra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Sailpra, Can you find any secondary source such as newspaper article or other press release about the University Name change which you had mentioned. (Article edit summary) or a newspaper article stating the new name? Radiantenergy (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Radiantenergy, The main issue here is that Baba's university is a deemed university and so there will not be any public announcements. But UGC (University Grants Commission of India) under whose jurisdiction the university comes, has posted its recent review on SSSU in which it has mentioned about this change in Page 19 of the pdf given in this link.[19]. This pdf has all the details that I am trying to edit here. Also the university website itself has posted the pdf that contains the notification sent to Government of India: [20]. The year of change is 2007. To show that the SSSU's website is authentic please see this UGC website that has listed SSSU's website in its webpage.[21].

And I observe that according to WP:SELFPUB we can include primary sources if: 

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So I am finding this edit comply with all these criteria. And there are few news paper articles after that year which have articles with this new name. 1.[22] 2.[23], 3.[24] and 4.[25]. The university runs on its own funding. I am also not happy with the way the university campuses have been described in the article. It first says "The Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning in Prashanthi Nilayam is the only college in India to have received an "A++" rating by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (an autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission).[51][52] His charity supports the Institute of Music and the Institute of Higher Learning in Anantapur, which is a women's college.[53]"It does not discuss anything about the 3 campuses of the university. It suddenly mixes one of the campus at Anantapur with the music college which is very unstructured. Please re-consider the changes I have made to that part where I have added all 3 campuses together and separated the music college from them. Sailpra (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton or ::Afterwriting I just wanted to know if you have any idea about the wikimedia's rules on uploading postage stamps? If not no problem I could ask the Admin about that. The issue is that in the section Service projects there is a mention of Water Supply project and is a very significant part of Baba's projects. I was worndering if I could upload the Indian Postal stamp that has been released by Indian Government in recognition of that service. Thank you.Sailpra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for starting to discuss these concerns. Most of these issues re sources etc have been covered before in an archived discussion, but I will wait to get admin input on the current situation. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton please start discussing on the university details. Thats a factually incorrect details which is our immediate focus.As a student of the university I am very concerned about the university details cited. Thank you. Sailpra (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I've undone this edit, as the edit summary misrepresents the cited source, which clearly attributes the claim to Sai Baba. --JN466 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Institutions, organizations and projects" section contains a lot of interesting and useful information, but on occasion goes into too much detail. For example, I can't see why we are writing about the Walk for Values in SSB's biography. That's in Canada, a country he hasn't even visited. Suggest we drop that whole paragraph here and make sure it's covered in Sathya Sai Baba movement. --JN466 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Too much detail for this biography. --JN466 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Jayen466 I think what you removed earlier was fine. But I suggest that you can remove the water project in maharashtra because it is not yet done. Instead as I have suggested the Orissa project is a significant project and The Sathya Sai Organization was awarded an appreciation by the CM of Orissa state on the Disaster Preparedness Day 2009. So there is value in retaining it than the maharashtra project. I have cited a tertiary source for this project. Thank you. Sailpra (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What did Sai Baba personally do in or for the water project? If he ordered the water project in Orissa to take place then this can be stated succinctly. If not, then it should not be mentioned at all. This article is about the person Sathya Sai Baba. The details about the Orissa water project should go in the article Sathya Sai Baba movement or Sathya Sai Organization. Andries (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
So you are asking what Sathya Sai Baba personally do for the water project! Sathya Sai Baba is not only the inspirer here, he is the soul decision maker for all these projects. It was he who promised to take up the water projects. When we see funding for all these projects people or government helped in these projects because Sai Baba had initiated these projects. I lived with Baba and I know how he is soul guide in all these projects. He approves the sites, He approves the dates and he interacts with various parties involved in the projects and any decision in the project cannot go without Baba's approval. This is a service project and not a profit making exercise where you pay people and get work done. These water projects were not undertaken by the governments themselves because of the amount of bureaucracy and challenges. Just go through the Orissa Project and water project details and they tell us what was Baba's involvement in these projects. Who is there to fund these projects? The people offered funds because of their love for Baba. I can go on about each of these projects. The problem is that none of you have lived with Baba and that makes your knowledge very less and speculation more. I have lived and can give any inputs you want to refer to. Absolutely there is no question about Baba's involvement in these projects right from the inception to their execution. Sailpra (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Andries here. This is a biography. Having an overview of the charitable work Sathya Sai Baba has inspired is fine, but it should be an overview. Details can be given in the articles Andries mentions. --JN466 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You are saying you want to write Baba's biography. If that is the truth then why have such a big section on controversies? Basically none of the editors of this article lived with Baba and what right do you all have to write the biography. Basically you are trying to do Google Search on Baba and add whatever material is available over the internet. In that case why do we need wikipedia? Google search is enough right. And since in India the internet reach is not significant you are finding lot of claims and critical analysis found in the west and just putting that as teritiary sources. I find that this article is so hollow when it comes to Baba's message and His actions and His Life. We need to be clear about what Baba's biography should contain. Did anyone mention about Baba's involvement in the revival of Vedic tradition anywhere in the article? No. Its a major part of Baba's life. Actually before he started the SSSU it was a Veda Pathashala and even now its a practise that every student voluntarily learns vedic mantras. In 1953 he went to Rajhamundry and did Upanayanam to all the priests who could not afford and he initiated the Veda Jnana Saptaha yagna which is conducted even till this day during Dasara festival. He recently organized 2 huge yagnas called The Ati Rudra maha yagnas one at Puttaparti and Chennai. So the editors basically are not interested in Baba's biography but what people claim Baba to be etc. In that case we should self-enquire ourselves are we writing a biography or something else. A biography should contain sources to publications and books but not cheap magazines and website reviews. Remember internet does not come under the jurisdiction of any international laws and so googling about Baba is not an authentic source for his biography. I would suggest that this article be edited by people who lived with Baba!Sailpra (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that Wikipedia is a pointless waste of time. It seems, though, that you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia's sourcing rules. Being published on a web site is not sufficient for a source to be included here. Could you perhaps identify the specific sources that you think are unreliable?
You propose that only people who have lived with Baba are qualified to write about him. There are two issues here. First, sources here are supposed to be secondary. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the broad consensus about a topic, gathered from reputable sources. A person writing about their own personal experience would be quite different.
The more serious problem with that idea is, do you know anybody who has sufficient experience but is not already convinced in the divinity of Baba? You can't have an article written solely by people with one viewpoint.
Please spend some time reading Wikipedia policy pages to understand the sourcing requirements and the philosophy here. This article talk page is not the place to disagree with the underlying principles that WIkipedia uses. Bhimaji (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I exactly don't mean that but then a biography of spiritual figure I personally feel has not been very well put down under wikipedia guidelines. I am not speaking about religious figures but spiritual figures. The reason is that even if you look into Sri Aurobindo's aticle or Swami Vivekananda's article for example just browse through the references and you find most of them have to cite original research i.e books and publications by the Sabda Ashram or the Advaita Ashram respectively. The issue is that no secondary research is done in universities on spiritual leaders. In that case how does wikipedia expect to use secondary or tertiary citations for spiritual leaders? Coming to Baba's case thats the key issue here Bhimaji there are no books or documentaries or research by a person who sufficiently stayed with Baba and not convinced about his divinity or message etc. Why can't we discuss wikipedia principles when they are making us indecesive as to what has to go into Baba's biography? Sailpra (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sailpra, I concur with the above, though I am more sympathetic than you might think. To give one example from my own experience, I happen to have spent some years at sea. During part of this time I served as Executive Officer on all of the world's four existing coal-powered ships of Titanic size. I KNOW that many of the theories and criticisms about the ship that pop up in Wikipedia are nonsense. Does this make me the best editor for the Titanic article? No, arguably the worst. I have few books on the subject and know nothing about the available sources, and that is all Wikipedia is interested in. This is for a good reason. Getting back to your situation, you can claim that you have important inside knowledge of Sai Baba, but other people claim the same thing while holding the opposite view of him. What happens if you both try to be heard? It's called an edit war, and nobody likes it. The answer is that Wikipedia only, or mostly, accepts reliable, secondary sources. Original research is not allowed. I hope this has become clearer for you. Rumiton (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton you make sense absolutely. Even I don't claim here anything. My concern is basically about the references we need to add for Baba's biography. A biography should contain his life, from his childhood days and till this date. I don't see this article worth saying its biography. No mention about Baba's childhood days, about the tours he had made in India and abroad, his interaction with various spiritual leaders of Inida, his efforts to re-emphasize vedic tradition in India, and a whole gammot of aspects which form the firm basis for he becoming a spiritual figure. Regarding original research I am again here copying what I had posted for other user here: I personally feel the rules for biography of a spiritual personailty has not been very well put down under wikipedia guidelines. I am not speaking about religious figures but spiritual figures. The reason is that even if you look into Sri Aurobindo's aticle or Swami Vivekananda's article for example just browse through the references and you find most of them have to cite original research i.e books and publications by the Sabda Ashram or the Advaita Ashram respectively. The issue is that no secondary research is done in universities on spiritual leaders. In that case how does wikipedia expect to use secondary or tertiary citations for spiritual leaders?Sailpra (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Third party secondary sources are available. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. But it is true that little reliable information about Sathya Sai Baba's life is available. Scholars generally do not consider publications by devotees about Sathya Sai Baba's life reliable. Andries (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The above list maintained solely by Andries here - Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources cannot be used as a reliable source list for the Sathya Sai Baba article. Why?
  • It has a number of original research and POV critical / libel material by ex-followers of Sathya Sai Baba.
  • It also lists critical original research books which were banned by arbitration due to lack of reliability.
  • This page has more critical source material than positive source material on Sathya Sai Baba.
  • It also has sources which were declared unfit in the BostonMA mediation discussion on the Sathya Sai Baba article. This page needs a major clean up and cannot be used as such. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed material added by user:Ombudwiki and I think that all that I added was and is okay. All that is still listed now are reputable sources, I believe. If you still disagree please let me know what and we can discuss. Some material was also copied from the original reputable source to critical website but that does not make it unreliable. Feel free to add more postitive sources. Andries (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Your source list page still has lot of issues and needs a major clean up. Here's the summary of the issues.
  • Almost every critical / libel article mentioning Sathya Sai Baba whether reliable or not is mentioned in your source list. Unreliable libel articles / books should be removed from the source page.
  • Page has 80% Critical / libel source material, 10% positive and 10% neutral sources. Needs a fair balance of reliable sources satisfying the BLP guidelines.
  • Only 1 or 2 academic sources are mentioned. More academic / neutral sources need to be added to the list.
  • Libel information from Critical websites though argued by you as reliable is not acceptable. Wikipedia should not be using content from either Pro-Websites nor critical libel websites. All those contents or sources has to be removed from the list.
  • Also more positive / neutral reliable sources needs to be added to the list. I will discuss the details of the problematic sources in the source list talk page Radiantenergy (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, outdent, regarding Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources, again please be please be specific about what you consider libel (unreliable). All was first published in reputable sources and none was merely copied from critical websites without checking this. I count 9 academic sources, not 2, but there is a reason why that page does not list much more academic sources: they mostly treat the Sathya Sai Baba movement, not Sathya Sai Baba's life. Andries (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how many of these references have spoken about Baba's biography. I am not speaking about claims , miracles, opinions etc. We want third party biographers. Please visit the wikipedia article on Ramana Maharshi. What a beautiful article it is. Well documented and well seperated sections on his biography. And for your information most of the references in that article are primary sources.Sailpra (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Sathya Sai Baba's life is that so undisputed few facts seem available. It seems that everything in Kasturi's works needed to fit in a hagiographic framework. How many people tried to verify what Kasturi wrote? Very few and some incidents described by Kasturi were falsified. Andries (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Andries This discussion has been moved to Section:Discussion on Making Biography look better Sailpra (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it is okay and within the rules of Wikipedia that so much information in the article Ramana Maharshi is sourced to devotees' books, but I do not know enough about the subject and the sources to have a good informed opinion. It may be acceptable if certain conditions are fulfilled:
1. the editors use this information from devotees' book very cautiously
2. the information sourced to these books is uncontroversial and are mainly facts, not subjective opinions or doubtful interpretations
3. the books are reasonably reliable.
At least condition 3 cannot be met for this article. Andries (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Ramana Maharshi article is well written, but that does not make it a good Wikipedia article. It would leave the reader in no doubt that the subject was at least semi-divine, as the primary sources chosen all point that way. There are many such pages on Wikipedia that exist because no one really cares enough to challenge them. I don't think this is one of them. Rumiton (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Rumiton This discussion has been moved to Section:Discussion on Making Biography look better Sailpra (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

improvements

wondering why the 60% downsize of the article didnt include the controversy's section?

J929 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic important stuff absent

Sathya Sai Baba is also a writer, and has authored sixteen books... and this is not even mentioned in the article!

IMO, these books are VERY important. If someone wishes to know more about Sai Baba, well... I'd say "read what he has written".

If this someone comes to the Wikipedia article, it is not even mentioned that he is also a writer.

IMHO, it's just like an article about "Edgar Alan Poe" not mentioning that he has written books... wouldn't you feel that something is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.127.42 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

there is a separate article for that Bibliography of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Series on Hinduism

It may not be appropriate to put Sri Sathya Sai Baba's article under the series on Hinduism because He preaches the philosophy of Faith in All Religions.

Elucidating on His mission, Bhagawan declares “I have come not to disturb or destroy any faith, but to confirm each in his own faith, so that the Christian becomes a better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim and the Hindu a better Hindu.” (Source: http://srisathyasai.org.in/Pages/SriSathyaSaiBaba/Introduction.htm)

Christmas(http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/christmaseve.html, http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/christmasmorning25122009.html, http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/christmasevening25122009.html, http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/childrenchoir26122009.html) is celebrated with as much Fan Fare as Shivarathri (http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/shivarathri2010.html). Of late even Eid Ul Fitr (http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/eid2010.html)is being celebrated every year.

Therefore I feel that this article is categorised erroneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjbiscuit (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

These are primary sources. Most secondary sources describe the subject's teachings as traditional Hinduism (which BTW, also describes itself as inclusive and pan-religious.) Rumiton (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism:

This article was vandalized beyond recognition due to the libellous contents added from an IP address. Neutral version has been restored. Please be aware that this article went through 2 arbitrations.
  • Adding poor and unsourced material or libellous claims in a Biography of Living Person will not be tolerated.
  • Please read all the earlier discussions and discuss with other editors before making sweeping changes to the article.
  • I have also added the IP address 122.172.61.10 from which the article was vandalized with libellous material for future reference.
Thanks
Radiantenergy (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That was not vandalism: it was a sincere attempt to improve the article. And the only mistake that was made was that the edit cited from the Findings which was called by several reputable sources an important document. The edit should have used the summaries of the Findings by reputable sources. So the mistake was a very understandable minor mistake by a beginner. I do not think that any accusations made in the edit did not appear in reputable sources, so it was not even libellous in a legal meaning of the word. Andries (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Erlendur Haraldsson

User:Radiantenergy restored my deletion of the research by Erlendur Haraldsson, citing the lack of discussion. Given the contentiousness of this article, he is probably right that this should be discussed, since we don't want to create yet another war with (initially well-meaning) editors flinging bombs at each other from entrenched positions.

So, why did I delete the paragraph? The simple answer is that I found it to be non-encyclopedic. By this I mean that it attempts to shed light on the subject by quoting a source that is neither scholarly or scientific. While I have no grounds to question Haraldsson's credentials as a scholar, the citation in this article states that he only "investigated the guru's alleged miracles and manifestations through interviews with devotees and ex-devotees". In other words, the part of his work referenced here is based purely on hearsay from non-objective observers, and so his findings have no value in proving or disproving the validity of Sai Baba's alleged miracles, and are therefore irrelevant here. Patrick Neylan (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Patrick Neylan,
  • Prof Haraldsson from University of Iceland needs no introduction with decades of research work on Parapsychology and several scientific publications and journals to his credit. The next question is how is he related to this article - Sathya Sai Baba?
  • Prof Haraldsson, University of Iceland has done years of scientific research on Sathya Sai Baba's miracles and paranormal phenomenon associated with Sathya Sai Baba's materialisation, levitation, flowing objects and other paranormal phenomenon reported by his followers.
  • His team has also scientifically researched DD video of materialisation footage by Sathya Sai Baba. Dr.Haraldsson is the author of 4 books with in depth scientific analysis on Sathya Sai Baba's miracles. You may need to read the book to fully understand the implications - http://books.google.com/books?id=6wqmy4z3428C&pg=PA36&dq=Modern+Miracles:+An+Investigative+Report+on+These+Psychic+Phenomena+Associated+With+Sathya+Sai+Baba&hl=en&ei=MSL3TKGEJYSs8AaZvcX2Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Being new to this article you may not be familarize with Haraldsson and his book. A scholarly source cannot be undermined based on personal views and user interpretations. Prof Haraldsson didn't write a book merely based on heresay. Dr. Haraldsson has also witnessed some of these materialisations first hand - He and Dr.Osis have tried to interpret these paranormal phenomenon scientifically in this book.
  • Dr.Haraldsson and Dr.Osis using advanced computer technology and photographic techniques researched the DD materialisation video and have written their findings and conclusions in this book.
  • The book Modern Miracles by Professor Haralsson covers in depth scrupulously scientific report of the paranormal phenomena performed by Sai Baba researched scientifically by Dr. Haraldsson along with his team.
  • Haraldsson has also published several other journals researching on Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Journal research list on Sathya Sai Baba - http://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/svid.htm#6

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Radiantenergy

Thanks for the response. I don't understand your statement, "A scholarly source cannot be undermined based on personal views and user interpretations," since that wasn't what I did. In fact, I did not question the source at all, I merely questioned what had been cited in Wikipedia.

Again, thank you for providing links and citations. They genuinely help the discussion. The link to "Modern Miracles" is interesting and seems to show the whole book, but again Prof Haraldsson is only citing hearsay throughout. This is perfectly valid as biography, but it isn't a scientific analysis. If there is a "scrupulously scientific report" then it isn't in this book. There is an analysis of a video purporting to debunk the miracles, in which the authors say that the video doesn't prove fraud, but this is hardly evidence that these are genuine miracles. Maybe I missed it: I can't read the entire book word for word in order to respond here. Perhaps you can provide a page reference.

So Haraldsson's work as cited is indeed scholarly in terms of biography and can be cited as such on Wikipedia, but there is nothing scientific in his work as regards the veracity of Sai Baba's miracles. Patrick Neylan (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much the conclusion I drew, but OTOH, while fraud can be proven, perhaps there is no way to prove genuine magic (if there is such a thing.) All anyone can say is, "Well I didn't see him cheat." Rumiton (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The basic question is What do we call or accept as a scientific analysis / report?
  • When ever there is a question about a claim. Scientist do experiments with advanced scientific tools to verify if the claim is true or false and record it. That's what Dr.Harldsson and his team did. They sent DD video with the Sathya Sai Baba materializing a gold chain to a company which investigates corporate fraud using advanced computer technology. After processing the DD video frames through advanced computer and photographic techniques they did n't find any clues of trickery.
The next question point is Can Science explain everything? Do we have scientific tools to understand every thing happening around us? Does Science have boundaries or limitations?
  • Yes. Science has its own limitations we still don't have scientific tools which explains every mystery in the world. We don't have scientific tools in the field of Parapsychology - reading other people thoughts or explain why we do have dreams or understanding the human mind etc. Science has its boundaries and cannot go beyond a stage. Everyday Scientist are baffled by mysteries - a 8 year old girl surviving a plane crash when every other passenger died on the spot or stories of people who have had after life experience and waking miraculously from dead bed etc.
My point is Scientific investigation can only go so far and cannot explain everything. We still don't have the tools to explain or prove genuine miracles or recreate miracles scientifically believed to be performed by Jesus or other Saints around the world. We have n't advanced in the field of Parapsychology to explain every phenomenon or mystery happening around us.
Radiantenergy (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Btw, Haraldsson's book was not scientific which he more or less admitted, because of SSB's refusal to have him investigated, but he had to resort to historical method. Andries (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
(I thoroughly disagree with Radiantenergy's assessment of the limitations of science regarding parapsychology, though this is not very relevant for the article. Only one genuine miracle worker who agrees to have him investigated in controlled circumstances would suffice for scientific proof.) Andries (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC))
Can you point to "one genuine miracle worker" whose abilities have been validated by scientific investigation? Does this mean there is no such thing as a genuine miracle worker? Just asking. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages are not for re-enacting the debate. But it will probably not surprise you that devotees when challenged about SSB's miracles quite often argue that no miracle worker avatar, son of God, saint ever agreed with a test in a laboratory. I will post an excerpt from a reputable source about that. Andries (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press. (1988) , based on his dissertation of 1985
page 256-257 "The nub of the crucial problem for those who apply themselves to theology lies in the fact that the gods, by definition, have not been subject themselves to testing under controlled conditions. [...]To be subject to laboratorial testing is to be accessible, to be manipulable, to be no more than an extension, if not of man himself then of the pnysical [sic] world of which he is the steward. |It would be to abdicate the from the concept of deity as that on which all else is contingent.[ ..]"
page 257 "Sceptics might argue that the onus of proof must rest on the believers, since it is their claim that the observed laws of science are being transcended. The believers, however, will counter that there are factors involved which by definition, are not amenable to such proving."
Andries (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

| added it to this page Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. If you disagree with sources then please let me know and try to be specific and we can discuss. Andries (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

  • 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. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
  • 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. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
  • Andries and SSS108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

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. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources.

  • Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. When contributing on talk pages, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons.
  • Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision 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.
  • The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward.

This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ Haraldsson, pp 209
  2. ^ Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia By Alexandra Kent http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=26sVhUo_aM4C&pg=PA37&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
  3. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC&pg=PA162&dq=%22Sathya+Sai+Baba+was+born+in+1926%22&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Sathya%20Sai%20Baba%20was%20born%20in%201926%22&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_15&oldid=1091482420"