Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sathya Sai Baba article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

	Sathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2004 Peer review Reviewed May 14, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 3, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed Current Status: Former featured article candidate

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. WikiProject Biography     (Rated C-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography portal C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived. The following comments have been left for this page: There is no question that in terms of the amount of information and number of references that this article is at the very least a B-class article. The unfortunate downside is that, given the regular revisions to the article which seem to be taking place, that it might encounter difficulties on that basis. Personally, if and when the edit wars ever end, I will be more than happy to review it and very likely propose it for good-article status. Until the edit wars cease, though, I regret to say that there probably isn't much that can be done to promote it, as the content might change substantially between the time the article is nominated and the time it is reviewed. Badbilltucker 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I have reservations about this being a B-class article. It has a lot of detail but also a lot of POV-pushing and it paints a picture that seems to me to be just plain inaccurate in the real world. And while there are many references they're almost entirely of works admiring SSB, mentioning little or none of the large amount of critical material available. The following seems like a very good bibliography of SSB-related material: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/sbresearchbib1.htm Maybe some of the works mentioned in it can be used to improve the article. 67.117.130.181 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Amazing, now 67.117.130.181 is arguing for the inclusion of original research by Steel, a source that deemed to be non-reputable in mediation with BostonMA. 67.117.130.181, SSB is a very popular personality. The controversial material about him is many years old and there simply isn't any new controversial material to update the article with. Also, please refrain from posting these critical links on pages associated with Sathya Sai Baba. There is an ArbCom ruling that has prohibited this. Please read it for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 talk-email 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I'm not proposing to incorporate the bibliography into the article. I'm saying it has citations for various other publications that look like they should be usable in the article and are likely to be worth tracking down. I don't see it as a critical link. It is a bibliography and has citations to all kinds of material both pro and anti. Also, it is well sourced: every entry in it has a citation, which is the point of a bibliography. I will ask Thatcher131 for clarification about the arb ruling since I think you may have both misinterpreted it (at least I hope you have). 67.117.130.181 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) requested here. 67.117.130.181 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Religion (Rated C-Class, Low-importance) ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WPReligionReligion articles Religion portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge There is no question that in terms of the amount of information and number of references that this article is at the very least a B-class article. The unfortunate downside is that, given the regular revisions to the article which seem to be taking place, that it might encounter difficulties on that basis. Personally, if and when the edit wars ever end, I will be more than happy to review it and very likely propose it for good-article status. Until the edit wars cease, though, I regret to say that there probably isn't much that can be done to promote it, as the content might change substantially between the time the article is nominated and the time it is reviewed. Badbilltucker 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I have reservations about this being a B-class article. It has a lot of detail but also a lot of POV-pushing and it paints a picture that seems to me to be just plain inaccurate in the real world. And while there are many references they're almost entirely of works admiring SSB, mentioning little or none of the large amount of critical material available. The following seems like a very good bibliography of SSB-related material: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/sbresearchbib1.htm Maybe some of the works mentioned in it can be used to improve the article. 67.117.130.181 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Amazing, now 67.117.130.181 is arguing for the inclusion of original research by Steel, a source that deemed to be non-reputable in mediation with BostonMA. 67.117.130.181, SSB is a very popular personality. The controversial material about him is many years old and there simply isn't any new controversial material to update the article with. Also, please refrain from posting these critical links on pages associated with Sathya Sai Baba. There is an ArbCom ruling that has prohibited this. Please read it for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 talk-email 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I'm not proposing to incorporate the bibliography into the article. I'm saying it has citations for various other publications that look like they should be usable in the article and are likely to be worth tracking down. I don't see it as a critical link. It is a bibliography and has citations to all kinds of material both pro and anti. Also, it is well sourced: every entry in it has a citation, which is the point of a bibliography. I will ask Thatcher131 for clarification about the arb ruling since I think you may have both misinterpreted it (at least I hope you have). 67.117.130.181 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) requested here. 67.117.130.181 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) WikiProject India(Rated C-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale by the India project. WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-Class, Low-importance) PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Further information and related task forces:   Metaphysics Ethics Philosophy of religion Philosophers Eastern philosophy Contemporary philosophy WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated C-Class) Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Complementary and Alternative Medicine portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

This page has been cited as a source by several media organizations. The citations are in: "Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. August 4, 2004. http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2147109,00.html.  (details) "Debate: Sai Baba, a godsend?". CNN-IBN. November 24, 2006. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/debate-sathya-sai-baba-godsend/26910-3.html. (details)

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Sathya Sai Baba:

Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done) Improve the article based on Jossi proposals recommended by the arbitration commitee. Remove unreliable and poorly sourced material from the article Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order) Write about the Prashanti Council in the section organizations Separate criticisms from the other areas of the article, and add them to the criticism section. Ensure only professional critics are sourced, rather than unfounded authors who otherwise specialize in other areas. Add more interesting pictures, such as that of his books, center's etc.

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

Contents 1 "Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha" 2 Article uses mostly not reliable sources 3 The state of things here is a SHAME 4 Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s 5 references 6 Conflict of interest? 7 Video 8 Asian Voice 9 A couple of concerns 10 1 Revert per day 11 Dilip POV pushing undoing improvement efforts 11.1 No Personal attacks please 12 Now come on 13 Comparing the two versions 14 To the editors of Sathya Sai Baba 15 Dispute 16 On Neutrality and WP:BLP 17 On Biographical articles 18 Where are the others? 19 Criticism according to Wikipedia Policy 20 Please vote on your perspective on whether to have the clips in the article 20.1 Response from sbs108 20.2 On fair use 20.3 Imagebot 20.4 As this appears to be getting nowhere 21 Parameters and Outline Suggestions for the Article 22 Non-Free Content 23 Arnold Schulman's book, Baba 24 Selective Notes on Biographies of Living Persons 25 On Building Consensus-No Validity to Voting 26 Sathya Sai Baba Sandbox 27 The use of the word "Controversial" in the first line 27.1 The word controversial 28 Suggestions on Merging of Miracle Sections 29 Love is My Form, Volume 1 (2000). A Glimpse

[edit] "Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha"

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

Please, correct the passage.

[edit] Article uses mostly not reliable sources

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

[edit] Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village.[citation needed]"^[1]

[edit] references

)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

This article has been tagged as edited by someone having a conflict of interest. The arbcom thinks that I have a conflict f interest, which I continue to deny, but I have not edited the article for years. I am not aware of any serious proof that any other contributor has a conflict of interest. So I request that this tag is removed. Andries (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the major contributor to this article, making 972 edits, roughly 600 more edits than the next highest. Furthermore, You have been accused of have a CoI, and the tag says that one of the major contributors may have a conflict of interest. And the last time you edited the article is inconsequential, as you remain the largest contributor to the page by a large margin. I believe the tag is appropriate. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The last edit that I made is more than two years ago and many edits have been made since. The current version is not a revert to an old version. In other words, I think that the COI warning tag is exaggerated at best. Andries (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article. Information that you added remains in the article. That alone justifies adding the tag, as a general warning to readers. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread on the COI noticeboard about this. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Andries (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave my views on the matter. I stand by the tag, per my reasons above. You cannot possibly claim that the tag doesn't belong on the page, considering that you have been accused of having a CoI, and are the largest contributor to the article (albeit your last edit was over a year ago.) Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I relisted my objection to the tag on the noticeboard, because nobody except we commented. Andries (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Even though i readded it, on further reflection i support its non-inclusion. Policy probably argues against it and it is, at any rate, a distraction from this articles much bigger textual problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that video of some kind illustrating Sai Baba's miracles is very informative. I haven't searched out what the other video available is, so perhaps there is other video that is more appropriate. However, the ability to perform miracles seems to be an important aspect of Sai Baba - it differentiates him from somebody who is simply, say, a philosopher. Understanding what form these miracles take is very much on-topic. Bhimaji (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with adding the videos to the page. The fact that his miracles may be fake are more than adequately covered in the article, so adding the videos just seems like overkill to me. I would not be opposed to having links to the videos on youtube under the "look also" or "external links" sections at the bottom of the page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I dispute the reliability of jojas.com, from which at least one of the videos originates from. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support adding either positive or negative videos in this article. As OnoPearls pointed out we already have enough explanation about those miracles. When you look at those videos its not really clear what's happening whether its true as claimed or fake as claimed in the negative videos. Also I would like to present a link about an interesting discussion from WIkipedia reliable source questioning the validity of You tube videos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Validity_of_Youtube_References. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think videos should be in the article for the following reasons.1)If we allow videos than every side will be adding their videos causing a video "war". The article is likely to get filled up with all kinds of videos, good, bad and kooky. Where does it end? I believe it will cause more trouble than its worth. People will constantly come and add or delete the videos. 2) Anyone who is interested can go to you tube and search for videos of Sai Baba. I believe there are hundreds of videos. 3) People who believe in Sai Baba have faith that the materializations and Miracles are real. People who do not believe in Sai Baba have faith that they are fake. 4)An example, people who believe in Jesus today never "witnessed" His miracles" of the Bible yet they have faith, that they happened. There were people in Jesus's time who saw the "miracles" first hand and thought they were fake or the work of the devil, my point is it serves no purpose and doesn't prove or disprove anything, so there is no reason for them to be in the article.Sbs108 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that all the videos need to be ones that debunk his miracles. I found the videos informative not because they were supposedly debunking, but merely because they helped me understand what was actually being talked about.

When I first read "materializing ash" I thought of the sort of big charred logs you get after a camp fire. A holy man producing a 2kg charred log seemed really strange - lots of people would have sore toes. Video of his materializations cleared up the silly images in my head right away.

I think the best way to solve the problem of people trying to add too much video is to come up with a criteria for inclusion. One video per type of miracle, perhaps? Bhimaji (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but setting the limit at one video per type of miracle would step on some toes, as how would we decide if we allow a video refuting the miracle or a video affirming the miracle? No, I am still not convinced that there is merit for including the videos. I did a quick look at List of controversial issues/people very few, if any, have videos about the topics. I believe that adequately explaining each miracle (such as saying he supposed conjured a small amount of ash) would be much easier, and much less controversial, than adding videos. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal perspective on this is that a judgement should be made based upon whether these videos contribute information to the article - that is, if they improve the article. My opinion is that they let the article convey more info than it can through just words. Perhaps we could keep a video or two - just the ones from highest quality sources( say The BBC one and the DTV one on "ash materialization" ). My two cents.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Both videos are negative in nature and attempt to prove that the materializations are fake. These videos do not improve the article, they give the impression of fraud.(which seems to be your POV) which is fine, but its not other peoples POV. Its up to the individual readers to decide what they believe. If this videos are allowed then there can be no limit to videos posted because people won't let the negative videos go unanswered. I think there is more integrity to article without the videos.Sbs108 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not meant to prove anything - but just to show the perspective of Reliable Sources on the subject of what the individual and his organization promote as "miracles". Merely an objective piece of info to support commentary in the section of article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the fact that we have videos disproving his miracles, while not having any that affirm them, screams POV. its as if Wikipedia is endorsing the POV that his "miracles" are faked. So if we allow those videos that disprove his miracles, the only way to maintain a NPOV is to allow an equal amount of videos that affirm his miracles. I maintain that we cover in the text the fact that his miracles have been refuted by several news agencies, documentaries and experts, but not adding the videos back in. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How about proposing some pro-Sai Baba miracle videos? Let's see if we can all agree on a set of videos that is fair and balanced. If, despite our differences of opinion, we can all agree on one reasonable sized set of videos, I think it will improve the article. Let's try putting links in here and seeing if we can get a consensus. Bhimaji (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A good idea. If we do decide to allow videos, I would go with the former suggestion of limiting the number of videos to two or four. That way, we can have a 1:1 ratio of videos refuting the miracles and videos affirming the miracles. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can find a well sourced, pro-miracle video then it ought to be fine to have it in the article. I dont know what could count as "pro-miracle" though. This person's tricks really does not compare to what a professional magician can do ( each word a separate link). I don't see anything wrong in adding say this clip with a caption that goes soemthing like "The BBC documentary 'Secret Swami' draws attention to apparent deceit involved in an act in which sai baba claims to "materialize" a lingam shaped artifact from his mouth." There is nothing POV about that. If there is any POV , it is of the source - The BBC.

Also, if there is no strong opposition from either of you, I was thinking of restoring this clip and this clip. Mainly because, am concerned the files might get deleted - being not used in any article. Both clips are very well sourced ( The BBC and The DTV) and the two miracles analyzed are pretty much the central two "miracles" performed by the person in public. If we manage to find well sourced 'pro-miracle' videos - we certainly can add them in for balance.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the argument about including the videos, I do not believe they should be readded until a consensus was met (which is why you should have started a discussion waaay back in January before you put the videos on the page.) And if we know that there is POV, even from the source, it is our obligation as responsible editors to not have the the material on the page, don't you agree? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 20:09, 11 June 2009(UTC)

I don't think that I agree. What is a POV, and what is "reliable"? A reliable source is one that puts forward trustworthy and accurate stories. The fact that they come to a particular conclusion is to be expected, not rejected. You can not claim that a source is not reliable because it reaches a conclusion. Bhimaji (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that if we know that a particular clip is pushing POV (cutting only a particular clip for the sole purpose of pushing your agenda) although it comes from a movie from a reliable source (the BBC, for example, which is well known as an unbiased and reliable source), then it is our duty as responsible editors to not have the material on the page. I could have worded my initial reply better, I know. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely against adding videos and especially not from heavily slanted documentaries. The BBC and Danish documentaries were not neutral. Their sole intention was obvious otherwise they would have gotten the other side of the story and would have left a reasonable doubt as to whether they were fake or not. Even if they are reliable sources they assumed guilt.They did not even leave open the possibility that the miracles are real. If they did do that I would have no problem adding them. Its obvious that some people here want them because it pushes their POV. Do you know what the titles of the videos are? SaiBabaFakeRegurgitation and SaiBabaAshCreationExposed. Even Mick Brown in his book couldn't say the materializations he witnessed were fake. The point is some people believe they are real and some don't.They are POV period.Sbs108 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on the video titles. Those are not good titles. However, those titles came from the person who put the videos on Wikipedia. They should be evaluated based on content and sourcing - and then renamed if they are to be included.

Regarding the accusation that the documentaries were slanted and not neutral, you are essentially claiming that the BBC is not a reliable source. You would prefer that they left doubt or uncertainty as to whether Sai Baba can perform miracles or not. Why? Many, many documentaries come to conclusions. The fact that you don't believe the conclusions doesn't mean that the documentary must therefore be wrong. Please, suggest some videos that show miracles that can't be duplicated by any magician. I haven't searched for any myself, but I'm sure they must exist. Bhimaji (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my eyes the documentary is not "wrong", its the BBC's opinion based on their research. I have witnessed myself first hand the miracles of Sai Baba in his presence and in my home many times, but I am not trying to prove the miracles are real, I am only saying that the videos show severe bias under the guise "reliability." In some people's eyes the miracles are fake. That's O.K. So essentially the BBC is not "wrong" in the sense that they believe them to be fake. In my eyes they are more real the what you see in front of your eyes. Its your opinion that Sai Baba has been carring around "vibhuti pills" for the last 70 years and its my opinion that he has not. In the video that's trying to show how Sai Baba fakes his vibhuti, they stop the frame to show you what looks like a "pill" between his fingers, but for me its the start of the manifestation and when stopped appears to look like a "pill." A person with no faith will never believe a miracle even if its done right in front of them. They will always think its magic or trickery. No conclusion can be drawn as to whether the miracles are real or not, the only conclusion one can come to is one's own opinion on the matter. I think the explanations alledging the miracles in the text of the Sai Baba article are enough.yours Sbs108 (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SBS108, You may want to hold off forming a judgement on where the pills come from till you have seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yblhsr1O4IQ . Also, why would the person bend down to hold his hand just below the eye level of the audience when doing the purported materialization if he has nothing to hide?Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"I completely agree with you on the video titles. Those are not good titles. However, those titles came from the person who put the videos on Wikipedia" The person that put those videos on Wikipedia was the user that is so eager to have them back in the article (namely Dilip rajeev, as white_adept, now inactive user account 001). Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sbs108, I'm sure I don't need to remind you to assume good faith. You have no proof that any editor is trying to push a POV. Although I admit that the video names are sort of... suspicious. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That was simply a straightforward, logical name I gave the file when I created the clip on my hard-disk. No conspiracies here! If they need to be renamed, it is a pretty straight forward thing to do. I dont think there is a big enough issue here to resort to personal accusations, or consiparacy theories. I had used an alternate account - because this is a very sensitive topic in India. Because of the careless manner in which I handled the alternate account, people related to the sai baba organization managed to find my original account, and had a big propaganda/lie campaign against me underway on several blogs and their websites. Admins found my use of the alternate account legitimate - but then, I requested it to be deleted/renamed to protect my identity. Again, I request editors to assume good faith. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to adding any videos to this article neither positive or negative. All these Videos seems to be pushing POV views either proving its a miracle or pushing POV proving its a fake. Wikipedia emphasizes greatly on keeping the article neutral and encyclopedic and not to take any sides. In that perspective adding videos will not do any good to this article. There is already enough material in the article about miracle claims and refutation to claims. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Voice

I have yet to see any rationale for Asian Voice as a reliable source. Significant grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes are endemic. The Nair article that was just added back claims that Bill Clinton, among others, is a follower of Sai Baba. Last time I asked, nobody was able to pull up another reference to that claim. Nair quotes a former biochemistry student as a source of criticism on the BBC documentary - it's unclear how he qualifies as an expert of any kind, other than being a devotee of Sai Baba. Bhimaji (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We already had an early discussion related to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_13#.22Response_to_Criticism.22

Asian Voice Newspaper

• Asian Voice Newspaper has been serving the British Asian community for 35 years.
• Asian Voice newspaper with the highest circulation among the Asian community in the UK is widely read amongst 650,000 people of Indian origin all over Britain.
• Asian Voice newspaper is in its 30th year of publication.
• According to the publisher's own statement, Asian Voice is the: "First and foremost Asian weekly in Europe...In terms of circulation, Gujarat Samachar and Asian Voice are the largest such publications outside India. In the UK, we are the only member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) in our sector."
• Asian Voice Newspaper also organise the Asian Diversity Awards. Recently in the House of Commons, UK - “International Entrepreneurs of the Year” was awarded to JetAirlines Founder Goyal and voted by the readers of the Asian Voice.
• Asian Voice Newspaper also has an electronic version epaper catering to the internet community.

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiant convinces me. Asian Voice is not a reliable source. Looked into it and the editorial controls one would hope for aren't there at all. Needs to be dumped.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the source could qualify as reliable.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiant: This was discussed before, you are correct. However, the bullet points you provided do not support reliability. The National Enquirer has been published in the USA since 1926. They sell over a million copies a week. They are not a reliable source. The Audit Bureau of Circulation apparently certifies how many copies they sell - popularity does not bring reliability. It looks to me like you're cutting and pasting something you don't even understand. 30 years, or 35 years?

The technical quality of their newspaper is *atrocious*. The typography is third rate at best, photographs are poor quality and inconsistently color corrected. I still haven't found an article that didn't have multiple grammar mistakes in it. Those are objective facts. If you wish to establish this publication as reliable, you will need to find reliable sources that support Asian Voice as a publication with good editorial and fact checking controls. Bhimaji (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of concerns

In the intro we ought to make clear that sai baba is a 'controversial south indian guru. In India the term 'guru'( a word from sanskrit) means an a well respected, authentic spiritual teacher/ guide. Regarding the individual, the perspective of the many( in particular, of most reliable sources) is not that. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While the so called "reliable" sources you mention may have their perspective, Sai Baba's undisputed popularity throughout the world is massive compared to the critics, so this request seems petty. Even the BBC documentary admits his fame and popularity have not diminished. Even, the Salon article which is too heavily quoted in this article admits the same thing. I know that certain people out of jealousy just can not bear the fame of Sai Baba, but for this article both sides must be presented and in the eyes of the majority Sai Baba is a true "Guru" and is worthy of the name.Sbs108 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue I wanted to point out is that we need to keep self sourced material to an absolute minimum. To publicize or make claims about the controversial "charity" work, etc. - they should not be used ( for the simple reason that they are not reliable). We have sufficient 3rd party sources for almost everything including refutations from the sai organization to allegations, etc. If not, as a last resort, we can look into primary sources. Only by keeping the quality of sources we use high can we create a good encyclopedia article. It is not just a question of being responsible to wikipedia as editors, but also of being responsible to readers and society. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. However, I do believe that primary sources being used in the "response to criticism" are more than acceptable. In fact, I think it would be wrong to not source that to them. I mean, is there any more of a reliable source than the topic when responding to criticism? Of course not. I do agree that the Sathya Sai organization should not be used in any other section of the article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The charity work is documented, please see below. It may be your POV that the charity is controversial, but it is not seen that way as you can see below. I don't understand how its being responsible to readers and society to marginalize everything that is good with Sai Baba and magnify the supposed "bad." Yes if people have allegations they should be known, but the fact is (which I don't think Sai Baba's detractors realize) is that there is no case against Sai Baba. Because people think he is guilty does not mean that he is, its there POV.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/02/13/stories/2004021301330500.htm http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/features/saibaba/stories/2005112300260200.htm http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/01/stories/2004120113280300.htm http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500110300.htm.Sbs108 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Revert per day

I believe that it would be responsible for all editors involved in this to agree to one revert per day (unless of course it is reverting blatant and obvious vandalism, in which case the number of reverts is always unlimited). This will keep all of us from getting in an edit war, and will prove that we are all here to make this article better than it is. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I, Onopearls, agree to no more than one revert on this page in a 24 hour period. Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Me two too. :) Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good plan. I'm way too busy at work to spend all day reverting. :) Plus, I'd be better off trying to convince people here rather than arguing in edit summaries. Bhimaji (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree to one-revert per day. -Radiantenergy
• In the spirit of good faith I will agree to anything that is reasonable. Although, I think it will be tough to enforce and could cause more problems. When ever there are rules people come up with ways to work around them. I think agreeing to open communication, discussion, putting issues on the talk page and in the Sandbox first as well as having respect for those differing in opinion than you (as long as they are rational and reasonable)is a better solution. I think we need to respect Onopearls as the final word on issues that can't be resolved by consensus. Issues can always be revisited. What do you think?I have no agenda other than to get the article to a fair standard. It is almost there in my opinion, the only thing that needs to be done is reduction and reorganization of the criticism section which still dominates the article and is against the WP:BLP guidelines.I will not agree to any expansion of the criticism section.(it still shouts).I will be happy if someone just put in well written terms with some small reductions to make a clear concise point. As of now, It jumps all over the place like a spasm. Sbs108 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect to Onopearls, but...no, that really isn't how discussions on Wikipedia work. Onopearls is an editor, not a moderator. I will listen and discuss, but we aren't going to set up new committee-like rules. Bhimaji (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I said that this is how Wikipedia discussions works? No. You are a new editor to the SSB article (i assume), but there have been rampant edit wars on this page for several months. Second, No one said that this is a "committee", nor did they say that this is a rule. It is simply the editors of this page vowing to be more open to discussion before reverting changes (hence the one revert in a 24 hour period). This is merely an attempt at lessening the Wikipedia violations that the editors of this page often get into. I am very sorry if you disagree with this, and you do not have to abide by it, but what the other editors agree to is not up to you. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"respect Onopearls as the final word on issues that can't be resolved by consensus" .. Bhimaji, I think, was making it clear thats not how wikipedia functions. Onopearls, I think you yourself should make the issue clear to Sbs108. He seems to consider you a "wikipedia moderator" ( whatever that term means.). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Multiple_editors

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am incredibly offended by your insinuation that I think I own this article. And Sbs108 is not defending my edits, he is defending his own, which have been repeatedly called into question. I believe he is calling me a "moderator" due to the fact that I have been attempting to moderate between the conflicting parties so that we may reach an equal footing, and that I have been one of the more vocal editors in disputes, calling other editors to bring their dispute to the talk page for discussion. That in no way is claiming that I have any sort of power on Wikipedia, which I obviously don't. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono, there was no such insinuation on my part. I was merely pointing out that Sbs108 apparently wanting all editors here to "respect Onopearls as the final word on issues that can't be resolved by consensus" - would obviously be in violation on wikipedia policies. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Multiple_editors . And that I felt you yourself, being an experienced editor, is the best person to clarify to Sbs108 any misunderstanding he may have as to how wikipedia functions.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if my words suggested anything to that effect and would like to clarify that I was not accusing you of taking a WP:OWN attitude.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to one-revert per day. I think OnoPearls is doing an incredible job being a moderator to this article. He has brought positive discussions among editors who have varied perspective about this article. Being a moderator for this article is not an easy task on one side there is constant vandalism on day today basis on the other side there is constant edit war among all the editors. I think we should forget our differences for once and sincerely appreciate and applaude his efforts with respect to this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say again that the term "moderator" does not apply to Wikipedia, although if you believe that I have been doing a good job at moderating the discussions, I say thank you. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono, You have been doing a great job moderating and coordinating these discussions among all these editors. I do thing you need to be appreciated for this effort. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dilip POV pushing undoing improvement efforts

It is absolutely unacceptable what Dilip rajeev is doing to this article. He just walks in after a month. With out reading other editors earlier discussions and with no regard for the improvement efforts by others he adds what he likes. He deleted a mjaor section sourced to "The Hindu", "Indian Express", "The Times of India" because is not acceptable to him. This is just ridiculous. Here's the history of his edits pushing his POV views - [1], [2], [3]. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilip_Rajeev is out of control with his edits, he can NOT just run over other editors as he did in January and is doing now, please stop the recklessness.He has to act in a spirit of cooperation.Sbs108 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal attacks please

I have made very clear the reasons for my edits. I moved the particular section to Sathya Sai Movement page ( with an advert tag added) since the entire section was phrased like a cheap advertisement. This is an encyclopaedia. You are gonna need more than personal attacks to get such stuff added to an encyclopedia. This so called charity work you write up like an advertisement is highly controversial. There have been cases of kidney theft filed, in 1997 Australian National Television broadcast some very disturbing finds regarding the so called "super specialty hospital." Ignoring all that, when you make up a section to deceive innocents and readers -and then personally attack editors attempting to fix that, that is a pretty twisted scenario. Personal attacks are not gonna take you far on wikipedia, friend.

When you cant find anything technically wrong with the edits - you go ahead and attempt to slander the editor with a misleading comment made under a slanderous title. "POV pushing undoing improvement efforts" - which particular edit and how? I am sorry, but this time am not gonna buckle down to personal attacks. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The video have been there for over 5 months. You wanna remove them - present a rational, reasonable rationale, get consensus on that. Not attempt to do that on some cooked up excuse - "all videos are overkill" etc., and when that fails, further attack other editors. Andries, Bhimaji, Ombudswiki, Myself all have found that the videos significantly contribute to the article Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear by your edits that you do not want anything in the article that remotely paints Sai Baba in a positive light. Anyone can see this. The other editors (the ones you mentioned) pledged to work together, even those inimical to Sai Baba. Why can't you? Is this acceptable? How do you find justification for what you are doing? As it stood there was enough criticism in the article. Please read WP:BLP. It clearly states that criticism must not overwhelm the article and the minority viewpoint must not act if it is the majority. Sbs108 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What I want here is a well-sourced, scholarly article. Not an advertisement piece. I just pared out some extremely poorly written stuff. My central piece of addition in these edits would be the scholarly source Lawrence Babb and a some info from The Times to the teachings section.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Now come on

This is ridiculous! There is a blatant edit war going on by both sides, which is absolutely unneeded. We have to bring our problems to the talk page, and lets have a discussion over the problems before we go reverting edits left and right. Dilip, you want the videos in, and the page reverted to the one that you wrote as white_adept. Sbs108 and Radiantenergy want to add their info, while keeping a lot of yours out. This, as you all can plainly see, leads to an edit war. We have to work to find some middle ground, where the results are satisfactory for both sides. I know it wont be easy, but it is the only way that this article can move forward. Please, please bring your problems to the page for discussion. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I clearly do not want the page reverted to any old version. But neither do I support blanking out or shoving under the carpet of very well sourced info - anthropologist Lawrence Babb. , The Times etc. Also sections cannot be written up like advertisements. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing the two versions

Here is the article after the changes I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=296014411

And here is the other version : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=296015810

If editors can reach a consensus on which is more informative, objective and neutral and I think resolving the conflict would be simple.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff comparing the two versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=296015810&oldid=296014411 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the more pressing question is which revision follows the guidelines of a BLP better? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this interesting and concrete suggestion by Dilip Rajeev not worth further specific consideration by other editors?

"If editors can reach a consensus on which is more informative, objective and neutral and I think resolving the conflict would be simple." Ombudswiki (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My perspective is that the one which stays more objective, neutral, comprehensive, accurate and at the same time conforms to BLP - not by covering up information or white-washing the person but by ensuring the sources used are of the highest quality - should be kept. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is covering up information, need I remind you to assume good faith? The huge amount of criticism in this article already is making it not conform to BLP standards. Your version, in my opinion, is the less neutral of the two, as it has an obvious bias and POV against SSB. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying you personally are covering anything up or assuming bad faith on your part. I was saying BLP guidelines are not about censorship of highly sourced material. Also, could you specifically point out how adding objective, highly sourced material could make the article "less neutral" or "POV?" Many sections of the article are biased, slanted and misleading for the reader as it currently is.

Dilip rajeev (talk)

Please see WP:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and praise. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Ono. These reports ( of abuse etc.) are the central reason for the person's notability in international media. So we can't gloss them over either. What am saying is that we should present things in an academic manner. Second academic analysis of teachings etc ( for instance Lawrence Babb.) etc are just objective academic analysis - we should not be labeling them as praise or criticism. If there are positive things said about the person in reputable third party sources - we obviously shouldn't gloss them over either.

Presenting objective content in the so called "miracles" section, etc. are again not criticism in itself. But just objective material - we are merely letting the reader know that this is what reputable source BBC, DTV etc have to say on the topic. Where is there any "criticism" in this?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To the editors of Sathya Sai Baba

I hereby retired from editing this article, as I have lost all faith in the maturity and civility of the editors of this page. I am personally shocked and ashamed by the edit war that broke out today, and it caused me to lose the last shred of hope I had for bringing the editors of this article to the talk page to discuss our differences and reach a consensus on the information that should be allowed on the page. Best regards, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One last note: I maintain that the videos should not be on the page unless there is another video that is positive (i.e. If one video is disproving the video, there should be one affirming it) to maintain a sense of balance and neutrality.

Well, this aint horse trading. Since you're no longer involved, don't let it trouble you.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just my opinion on the matter. It should carry no weight in the final decision. :) Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're still here?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

OK, so I have protected this article fully for an initial period of 3 days. The mess of edit summaries that is the article history of the last 48 hours speaks volumes. Everyone - this needs to stop, there is absolutely no need for any of this... everyone walk away take some serious deep breaths, think how they are going to articulate their views and back them up with facts and reliable sources, and then come back and lay them out here without recourse to attacking each other. Less than 48 hours ago people were all agreeing to one revert a day and now this has happened. It cannot and will not be allowed to continue. There have been two Arbitration cases surrounding this article already - does everyone really want to see a third? Please take the time to set out calmly what you would like to see included/excluded/changed and give other people the respect of listening to their opinions. I have no interest in any of the sides of these disputes but I do (as we all should) have an interest in maintaining civility, the stability, accuracy, and reputation of the encyclopedia and in our community collectively appearing to be able to resolve our disputes in a grown up and respectful manner. Mfield (Oi!) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Mfield, I look forward to working with you and others to get this article to WP:BLP standards.My recommendations are as follows;1) review and clean up sources.2) Ascertain the weight of "reliable" sources which show clear bias both pro and con.3)Ascertain the place of primary sources in this type of article.4) Continue discussion on the use of videos.5) Have any major changes discussed thoroughly on the talk page with other editors before changes are made. The main problem has been users coming in making major changes without explanation in quick succession without any discussion whatsoever. I recommend editors work together in the sandbox on a section by section review and make recommendations.6) It is not acceptable to turn this article into a conviction of Sai Baba, the article should adhere to the WP:BLP standards.7) The article pre-January 2009 should be reviewed as it was more balanced. This was before one user came in and made 100's of edits without discussion in quick succession destroying the integrity of the article and turning it into what the previous editor called the most negative portrayal he had ever scene on Wikipedia 8) No one person should be overweight with regards to their edits.9) It is difficult to remain neutral on the subject but users have an obligation to be as neutral as possible and reasonable and fair when dealing with others.10) The three revert rule must be strictly enforced.10)Any edits without a concise explanation should be reverted immediately by the admin. I hope you and others editors find these recommendations reasonable. I welcome more suggestions from other interested editors. yours Sbs108 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also recommend a lock period of 5-7 days instead of 3 so important issues can be brought up and discussed in the talk page giving time for conflicting editors to establish themselves and get used to working together in the spirit of cooperation. yoursSbs108 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the lock can be conducive to letting things calm down. But I would like to request you to kindly refrain from characterizing my edits in a particular manner to achieve your ends - if there are issues with any particular edit I make - I'd be more than happy to stand corrected.. but, at the same time, I donot appreciate these personal attacks / mis-characterization of my edits the least. We need to adhere strictly to wikipedia policies which includes WP:BLP - but not distort or misrepresent these policies to achieve personal ends on wikipeda. Also , I am assuming good faith on your part - and believe your request to extend the lock period, and calling for extensive discussion before any change is made to the article is not because the article is locked on the version you prefer, but out of a sincere wish to see a neutral, objective, well sourced and comprehensive article. We need to reach a consensus here on which of the disputed versions are more objective and neutral ( neutral in the sense - in line with the perspective of reliable sources) - particularly, since a set of editors, who are long time contributors to wiki, consider the other version more objective and comprehensive. If you are thinking you could use "discussion" as a way of taking things in circles or delaying the addition of well sourced information you would not like to see in the article - that certainly wont be helpful to this process. Anyway, we need to bring up relevant issues and get a consensus formed among editors now.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your assuming good faith and I will assume the same. No sense getting in a tit for tat right from the beginning of a new chapter on this article. I think from this point forward though, behavior from every editor (including myself of course), should be scrutinized to the extent of how their edits improve the article with regards to the WP:BLP standards. The main goal is to get the article balanced so one reading it wouldn't think it advocates any specific point of view. Obviously there will be quotes from sources that advocate a POV, and obviously editors have a POV, so there will POV in the article but each POV must be given weight in the appropriate proportion and must not "shout". Also, derogatory categorizations and classifications (such as "child molester" and such) of Sathya Sai Baba must not be put forth as they are libelous, since Sai Baba has not been charged and is not proven guilty by any court of law anywhere. I sincerely hope and pray that we can work together without ill will and in a spirit of cooperation. yours Sbs108 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I was not the one who added the category. Second, you find the category in articles like Michael Jackson - if it belongs there, then it seems logical that it belongs here as well. Neither has Mr. Jackson been proved guilty in any court of law. But this is relevant to either person's notability in international media - much more so in the case of Sai Baba. Even UNESCO and several international governments have publicly stated their concerns on this. Third, avoiding POVs can only be done by ensuring good sourcing. Please see my post below.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article does not at any point use the term child molester. It talks about child molestation charges but it never categorizes the subject as anything. Anyone that added such a statement to that article, or to the article of any subject that had not been convicted of the same offense would be in gross violation of our BLP policy. Well covered and reliably documented accusations are certainly within the scope of an article, as long as they have received significant coverage in main stream media. In addition, without a conviction they would have to remain described as accusations, and the rest of the circumstances and facts, and other opinions would need to be given appropriate coverage for the accusations to be put in context and not left as appearing to make a point. Mfield (Oi!) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually an IP came and added "Category:Child sexual abuse" to the end of the article. My first thought was that it is a BLP violation. Then I checked the pages in the category and thought I saw the Michael Jackson page. In fact, I just now re-checked it: I stand corrected, and I apologize for the mistake - it is the page "1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson" that was added to the category - am not sure how legitimate/accruate that cetegorization is either. It indeed would be a gross BLP violation to add it to the Michael Jackson article, and if not not the same extent, to this article as well.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On Neutrality and WP:BLP

Lately, I've been hearing here a lot of argument to the effect that for each "negative" piece of info there should be a "positive" piece etc. This is a very mistaken concept of NPOV. NPOV is about good sourcing. Judging by that logic Dalai Lama and Osama bin Laden articles should have the same amount of "positive" and "negative" stuff. Obviously, that that is not what NPOV is all about. It is about making sure that the information we add in is very well sourced. That is, we accurately convey the perspective of reliable sources, irrespective of whether it conforms to our personal POVs of whether the information is positive of negative ( which is a subjective thing ). WP:BLP is not about censorship - but making sure that whatever info is added on a person is related to the person's notability ( clearly, these allegations and fraud are the central reason for notability of the person in international media ) and the information added is well sourced. Wp:BLP is not to be used as a banner to censor out information that does not conform to personal prejudices. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, and care should be taken to avoid undue weight being put on any certain aspect of a biography. The greatest percentage of the article should be dedicated to the topics that the subject is most notable for. Controversy sections should only be accorded a percentage of the article size in line with their coverage in reliable sources and their impact on the subject. Mfield (Oi!) 18:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that. In fact, the controversies are the main, if not the sole, reason for the person's notability in international media- if we look at BBC, The Times, DTV, Vancouver Sun - they all seem to focus solely on these controversies. BBC, for instance, points out that the scale of the abuse has caused alarm around the world. That said, wikipedia being an encyclopedia we should only be reserving a portion of the article for these controversies - my opinion is that we need to cover things in an academically sound manner.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a different take in "the international" media,http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/international/asia/01GURU.html?ex=10397895.Sbs108 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sai Baba is known throughout India and abroad for his humanitarian works as well as being a miracle worker. The so called "allegations" have had absolutely no impact on Sai Baba's reputation or following, this is even admitted in the two most quoted critical sources in the current article, the 2004 BBC documentary, and the 2001 Salon article. I think as a result one Sai Baba school in Sweden closed down maybe a few others and a few Sai Baba Centers. There are currently hundreds of Sathya Sai Baba schools and hundreds of centers throughout the world , none of them closed down. The "allegations" came to a head in 2004 with the BBC's documentary. Because of the heavily slanted documentary and some disaffected devotees there has been a tremendous and vicious campaign to spread this far and wide through the Internet, hence the "notoriety" in the international media. Allegations have been waged at Sai Baba since he was a little boy, yet he was never known for these. he became famous for his "alleged" miraculous powers, power to transform people and power to know peoples past, present and future. This campaign to tarnish his name still goes on today, but took a serious blow when Alay Rahm dropped his case against Sai Baba. ( The U.S consular page also dropped their warning referring to Sai Baba.) It was only there in the first place due to vigorous and extreme methods by ex-devotees to tarnish the name of Sai Baba. As of today 2009, Sai Baba is 83 years old and has never ever been charged with any crime. There is currently no charge, no case, nothing? Why am I saying all this? My main issue with the article is not the "reliable" critical sources, its the fact that criticism is over weighted in the article and violates the WP:BLP. Mother Teresa's article is a good model structurely for this one (Sathya Sai Baba Article) in my opinion. Although not accused of the same things Sai Baba is accused off, there is plenty of criticism in the article but it is conservative, flows well and doesn't consume the article.Sbs108 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See also this comment that could be used for the article Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources#Palmer_Baba.27s_World. Andries (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Andries, That's definitely a reasonable quote, I think the Schulman book can be used more in the article, as it documents many miracles and ones witnessed first hand by Schulman.It also leaves some doubt. It reflects well into the nature of Sai Baba as well as giving good biographical information. The book also ends on a doubt which makes it neutral in my opinion. The author admits feeling an intense love like never before yet is not wholly convinced of Baba's divinity. I propose a section by section collaborative rewrite, starting with something like this Intro, Birth, Early Life, Transformation, teachings, Miracles, Charitable works, controversy, present life, legacy etc. Criticism can be woven in where appropriate, and response to controversies can also be there.Sbs108 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On Biographical articles

I have come upon to this article as an uninvolved admin attempting to help settle a dispute above, but I would like to make the point from my reading of this article that it contains a lot of material about the organization rather than the person that is consequently inapropriate for a biographical article of the subject and that would be much better moved into the Sathya Sai Organization article. Particularly the Educational Institutions, Charitable Organizations, Hospitals and Service Projects, the Ashrams and mandirs and the Raising of funds sections seem like they would be better off in the organization article. 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on what you point out. And I am also of the same perspective. The material does not really belong in an encyclopaedic biography

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding your input. I don't have a problem with your suggestion but in the main body of the biography it should be mentioned that through Sai Baba's initiative two free super specialty hospitals came to be both Inaugurated by the then Prime Ministers of India, as well as a University which is the only college in India to receive an A++ rating. Through his initiative the water projects also came to be which provide water to hundreds of thousands if not millions. (this is all sourced to reputable sources.) I feel this warrants mentioned in the biographical sketch as they are part of his legacy, similar to Mother Teresa's charity.Sbs108 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I grew up in India and I know which universities are highly regarded here( The IITs, the NITs, IIMs, IISc, etc being a few of them). And I can tell SSB's is absolutely not regarded even as a reasonably good one by anybody or any aspiring student - with more and more people getting to realize the real nature of the organization, if anything students consider it is only shameful to enrol themselves in such an institution. People who join up there are more often than not chidren of devotees etc. The ratings, only evidence the political powerplay the organization is engaged in. BBC covers in detail, in its documentary Secret Swami, how much influence sai baba has in the Indian political community.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement "And I can tell SSB's is absolutely not regarded even as a reasonably good one by anybody or any aspiring student - with more and more people getting to realize the real nature of the organization, if anything students consider it is only shameful to enrol themselves in such an institution" is reckless and your opinion only but according to an article in The Hindu dated June 8, 2006, it states differently, " In India, there is only one college which has A++, that is the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, Prasanthi Nilayam." http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2006/06/08/stories/2006060801700100.htm. Your opinion about Sai Baba's political influence assumes some kind of foul play. This idea is conjecture only. Because it pains you that there is so much good being done by Sai Baba does not warrant removal from the article, just as the "allegations" for me don't warrant removal from the article. A good compromise is removing the section,and merging it into an expanded biography section. I really don't see how important information like this can be excluded. This is the main article on Sai Baba and should accurately portray his life and teachings (and controversy). Again not bloating one section over the other. I ask the uninvolved admin to give his opinion on the matter given the above discussion. Thank you. yoursSbs108 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the better place is Sathya Sai Baba movement. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba_movement/Archive_2#Removed_from_Sathya_Sai_Baba_could_be_merged_here. The relationship between SSB and the various organizations bearing his name is not described in reliable sources, as far as I know. Andries (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The association is mentioned in four separate articles in "The Hindu" Indian's national newspaper and in this New York Times piece. So I have to defer. Please read links.. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/international/asia/01GURU.html?ex=10397895http://www.hindu.com/2004/02/13/stories/2004021301330500.htm http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/features/saibaba/stories/2005112300260200.htm http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/01/stories/2004120113280300.htm http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500110300.htm. yoursSbs108 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sathya Sai movement article is irrelevant, because people can find that information on the Sai Organizational web sites. When Sai Baba is googled, this is the article that appears, therefore in the interest of the public, it must be written conservatively, with respect and without prejudice giving no more weight to any one section. A good example for how criticism should be treated in this article is the Mother Teresa article. I am not comparing the two I am just showing that even she had controversy. I think that article is well written. Sbs108 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know that there is an associaton, but the nature of the association is as far as I know not described in reliable sources. Who controls who? Is SSB controlled by the Sathya Sai Central Trust? Or is the other way round? If this is not clear then why include the organizations here? Probably SSB has little influence on many organizations belonging to the SSB movement. A more suitable place would be the Sathya Sai Baba Movement. Andries (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the others?

So far Dilip-Rajeev and I are the only ones on this discussion page since the protection. (besides admins) .It would be good if other editors weigh in on the issues. I still request the protection be extended to 5 days in order to give users a chance to give their suggestions for improvement. Thanks.Sbs108 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am continuing to watch this situation and will not be letting the protection come off the article until a suitable amount of discussion has taken place here to prevent a return to the situation that let to the protection. It is in everyone's interests to work through the problems here and now, as a continuation of the previous edit warring, without any constructive discussion or any attempt at consensus building is not going to reflect well on those that chose to opt out. 3RR is also going to be very tightly enforced once the protection does come off. Mfield (Oi!) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism according to Wikipedia Policy

Oringinally I had though that criticism should be in its own section. After reading wikipedia policy, I change my position and believe it should be incorporated into the article itself,but again it can not overwhelm the article and must be in proportion to the persons life in an overall sense and must follow the BLP standards which state that a "minority view must not act as though its the majority." People may argue about this but on investigation it will clearly show that the "allegations" view is in the minority as even critical "reliable" sources admit that his reputation and following remain intact. Because there are a number of anti-Sai web sites on the internet does not constitute a "majority" view or the "sole " reason for the persons notoriety. Given the fact that the family at the center of the two documentaries self dismissed their law suit, the fact there is no credible evidence against Sai Baba, the fact that he has never been charged or proven guilty, the fact that his schools and centers all over the world and hospitals remain open and are thriving, and the fact that his water project in India has brought drinking water to millions, among many other reasons not mentioned here, the critical view is in the minority. All the above said reasons can be an will be sourced to reliable sources.Sbs108 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism_sections

Of course, there is no need to title a section "criticism". These are just material relevant to the person's notability and we can cover them under appropriate namespaces. Point being, we could, for instance, just have a sub-section section called "Allegations of homosexual abuse" - without the umbrella category "criticism".

Regarding the controversial "charity" work you want to have elaborated in this article, I would like to point out to you is that this is an encyclopedia and we classify information under appropriate namespaces. If there are projects done by the organization - it should be covered in the article related to the organization - (in an academic, encyclopaedic manner, not like an adv.) - and certainly not here. Even in the case of a legitimate charity organization as the one founded by Arthur Cuming Ringland - things done by the organization are not covered not in the person's biography and the article on the organization makes no advertisement of the charity work it does. That is just how an encyclopedia functions - it hasn't got anything to do with personal prejudices. But, since you bring up all these I'd like to point out that there are different views on the "water project" and purported charity work you talk about. For instance, see The Findings. Not an RS as per wikipedia standards, but definitely a very notable document on the topic. A related article by a prominent Indian investigative news agency is here. Anyway, I think it is best that we donot get into such discussions - let us just strive to keep all discussions academic and focused on the article. If an edit bothers you, point out why - is it the sourcing, is it WP:BLP - if yes, why? etc. When we are here to contribute to an encyclopedia personal perspectives count for nothing.

Try to not repeat several times the things you have said in earlier, recent posts. Just to stream-line the discussions. Some of the claims you make above are quite nonacademic and distorted in nature - like that the family self-withdrew the case - do you realize how much they were tortured and slandered by sai baba related people before they were forced to do that? The dude had fallen into depression and drugs upon which he was then slandered by sai baba related people as a depressed drug addict, whose words count for nothing in a court of law etc. The family would have just wanted to leave it all behind them and live a life.

Again, such discussions serve little purpose when our job here is to contribute to an encyclopeda - it would be best if we could all keep discussions terse, academic and focused.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about minority vs. majority view makes me wonder if Sbs108 is trying to suggest that, if the majority of the public think something, then that means that the majority of text and/or sources in the article should reflect that view. I do not think that is how Wikipedia is. This article should leave the reader with an accurate impression of how public opinion stands. However, if reliable sources say things that go against the opinions and viewpoints of the general public, it is important that the reliables sources are clearly covered in this article. If anything, that makes it even more important to cover RS content - the purpose of an article is to inform the reader about the sources, not about what the majority of laypeople current believe.

I think that the "reliable but biased" description some editors are using is inaccurate terminology. If it is heavily biased or slanted, then it is not a reliable source. Bhimaji (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bhmaji. I completely agree with what you point out. In fact, the reason I didn't respond to what sbs108 was saying was that the fallacy in his arguments, I thought, were obvious. Public opinion about this person is not at all good either - except in the devotee circles. This can be evidenced by UNESCO withdrawing participation, American Embassy carrying warnings on their consular sheet for several years, schools related to the organization being shut down in many countries etc.

But, as you pointed out, what lay people believe is not what matters but the perspective of reliable sources.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote on your perspective on whether to have the clips in the article

(video clips are links rather than thumbnails on talk page per Wikipedia:FAIRUSE#Policy)

• The BBC documentary The Secret Swami draws attention to one of the purported "miracles" of Sai Baba.

• Denmark National Television documentary analyzing one of the most common purported "miracles" of Sai Baba.

• A video broadcast on Indian state controlled television in which Sai Baba is seen apparently faking the "materialization" of a necklace.

As most active editors here would know, these clips, which had been in the article for over five months, were removed lately. Please vote on whether to have to them on not.

Please use the template: Vote. Reason. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. They contribute info which would not be possible to convey through words alone. All clips are well sourced and certainly add to the commentary in the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Dilip. (Though I do not generally agree with Dilip's/Whiteadept's edits that made the article hypercritical and not very informative.) Andries (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comment, Adries. I'll definitely pay attention to the issue you pointed out. Till now, I was basically focusing on the sourcing and not on the tone of the content added. If you find any problem with any specific edit of mine, kindly do point out - I assure you, I'll take immediate steps to fix it/ or clarify the issue.Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Till now, am the only one who to cast a vote. Just wanted to remind editors to cast a vote on the issue so that a consensus may be formed among users active on this topic by the time the page is unlocked.Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response from sbs108

I think we have a lot of things to work out before we start voting on the videos. This is not a valid way to decide what is in the article. I can just get all my friends to get on Wikipedia and vote against the videos. We need to discuss the validity of the videos first and decide if they push a POV or not. The commentary suggests fakery which pushes a POV.Sbs108 (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is for active / established editors alone. No "friends" or newly registered editors allowed. This is a very valid wiki-process to establish consensus. I am assuming good faith and believe you are not attempting to use "discussion" to muddle things up or take things around in circles.Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also do not think the videos are appropriate on this talk page. Instead of getting into another edit war here on the talk page, I ask the admin to remove them as this is still a contentious issue.Sbs108 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let people vote and we'll get to know if they are "contentious." I believe it was not the least contentious for 5 months till a newly registered user ( if I remember right.. was it you sbs108?.. ) removed it. Most active, long term editors had spoken strongly in favor of including the videos in related discussions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

this is not the first issue we should be discussing, please see my post below. Maybe if you just remain patient and show a spirit of cooperation, I am sure one of the videos will eventually get in the article through a consensus. Prior to your entry there were no videos in the article for years, so just because you put them in doesn't mean they should stay. There is absolutely no way I am going to agree to three videos which claim foul play and clearly push a POV. So if you want to go back and forth we can or we can work together on a compromise.Sbs108 (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to get the videos into the page while it is protected, is this in good faith? The page is protected for a reason. We need to hash out the structure of the article first. Right now there are only three editors, you, me and Bhimaji, not enough for a consensus.Sbs108 (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1. Non free images can get deleted if not used in any article and we cant restore them since the article is in lock. 2. Having the images here for editors to review when we are discussing them is only reasonable.

05:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Response From RadiantEnergy:

I don't agree to adding the above Video Clips. They don't serve any purpose other than pushing POV. They don't make the article any better. I vote against using either positive or negative video clips in this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On fair use

There is a side issue here surrounding fair use - without making a judgement, the question that first needs to be answered is do the videos really add anything to the readers' understanding of the article subject that could not be expressed in words? If not then the videos fail the fair use rationale and should not be hosted on wikipedia. Whether they are controversial or not is irrelevant at that point. If this were an article on the subjects miracles themselves then the fair use claim would probably have more grounds than it would in a biographical article. Mfield (Oi!) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they do make something clear to the reader. One of the main reason why SSB is famous are his miracles, so they are fully on topic here. Andries (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But that misses the point. The main reason that Madonna is famous is for her music, but we cannot justify having fair use copies of her music videos, we don't have fair use videos of David Beckham taking penalty kicks, we don't have fair use videos of Brad Pitt acting in movies. These are all people who's work could be readily illustrated by video but we don't host fair use videos of them because we can't make a sufficiently strong rationale (partly - and this is important - since they are living persons). There are tight restrictions on fair use for good reason, without a very sound justification, Wikipedia is violating someone else's copyright. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other on these specific videos, I am clarifying the fair use/copyright status which needs to be considered, per policy, if these videos are to be, or even can be, included in this article. Mfield (Oi!) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Andries has made a very relevant point - one which deserves a great deal more attention in this article. Sathya Sai Baba has always made quite extraordinary claims (reincarnation, divinity, Purna Avatar, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.) On the other hand, the talents and skills of Madonna, Beckham and so on, although exceptional, are much more mundane, so video references about them would be of interest but not essential.

I therefore vote for the videos to be referred to in this article, at least with direct links. (Not as thumbnails.) If others wish to offer video references to miracles, let them provide links for those too. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That was not my point, I was not offering any opinion on how illustrative these specific videos are, i am remaining neutral in the intrests of being able to mediate. My point was purely that fair use videos have a very high bar for illustrative purposes, this is the reason why you don't find videos used all over wikipedia to illustrate things when text or still images can suffice. Any argument/rationale for their inclusion needs to take this into account and make a very strong case for why text or still images cannot provide adequate illustration. Mfield (Oi!) 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference, in my understanding, is that it makes clear the nature of these purported miracles in the perspective of these reliable sources. In my opinion these videos contribute a lot to the article - clarifying many issues about these purported miracles etc ( letting the reader know the perspective of these reliable sources). It would be difficult, if not impossible, to convey this information through text. Also, these are videos broadcast to the public on National TV of several countries, multiple times. And we are just using a very minor portion of the original videos.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As a good faith gesture I am willing to accept the Lingam manifestation video, WITHOUT your commentary and POV as the BBC just shows the video and makes no conclusions as you do. Also the name should be changed to" Sai Baba Purported Materialization." I will also add another video called "Sai Baba Abhishekam" without commentary. We can go on and on and battle it out if you want, but let the record stand That I am willing to make a compromise, otherwise its just going to be an edit war over the videos. As of now their use is highly questionable as the above argument indicates. Sbs108 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your gesture of good faith. But, I think we should just simply conform to wikipedia polcies and procedure - rather than attempt to strike deals. The latter, I believe, cannot help build a good article. If you want to a add a well sourced, relevant clip - please present it here, make the sourcing and relevance clear, and upon getting consensus from majority of editors, you can certainly add it to the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a very silly and inaccurate idea of what materializing ash was before I saw the videos. My first thought about materializing ash was what I see after a camp fire - big, charred pieces of logs. I could not imagine a holy man waving his hand as a 1 kg chunk of charcoal dropped to the ground. Watching the videos immediately clarified things. I knew that my mental image had to be off, but I wasn't sure what was correct until I looked at video. For people not familiar with Indian holy men, there's a lot that is hard to describe without watching it. A picture is worth 1k words, as they say. Bhimaji (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you pointed this out. For those familiar with this topic, "materialization of ash", in this context, might seem obvious. But for someone new to the topic - it indeed is very vague terminology - providing an explanation of which, using words alone, would be quite involved and, further, quite difficult to source.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Its clear from Mfield's post that the use of videos in this situation is questionable. There is going to have to be a consensus and a "deal" or it just going to be an edit war. By the way theses were obtained "stolen" and not used with permission, none of the footage is original and belongs to the sources, but that is beside the point. We should be talking about the structure of the article, not videos at this time.Sbs108 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll offer one more compromise. Links at the bottom of the article WITHOUT your personal POV commentary. NOT in the body of the article. That way we can have different kinds of videos.I think that is a fair offer and I would like to ask the moderator to weigh in. I think this is more than fair. Let's settle this and end the conversation.You are going to have to compromise.Sbs108 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is not theft. If you are accusing the BBC of copyright infringement, you're going to need to provide some evidence. Bhimaji (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you people even see my attempt to move forward and work together? If you want to take a hard stance, go ahead because in the end its only going to be blatantly clear what your agenda is. You are not even making any attempt to compromise and reach a consensus. Let this be known to the moderator and others.No one has replied to my post below.Sbs108 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sbs108, you have to understand how wikipedia works and conform to that. It is not about personal stances - but letting aside personal prejudices, and conforming to wiki policies. Please donot attack other long term contributors to the wikipedia project like this. It is not constructive from any perspective. Also, I sincerely urge you to take time to understand how wikipedia functions.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Mfield made it clear with regards to how wikipedia works with regards to fair use. You have a right to put the videos in based on your view and I have a right to take them out based on my view of the fair use policy. This will be the last I will say on the issue, I have offered two suggestions to get past diffferences of opinion on whether they should be included or not, since you absolutely refuse to have anything but your way and claim you just want to follow policy in my opinion shows a lack of good faith. Its not an attack its an observation. Its obviously debatable whether they should be in there or not otherwise there wouldn't be any discussion. Let this be heard.Sbs108 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sbs108: I'm waiting for you to provide the neutral or positive videos that you kept talking about. Please don't accuse other people of ignoring you when you ignore their requests.

Regarding your view of the fair use policy, none of your complaints to date have been fair-use related. You are of course welcome to raise fair-use policy objections, but I suggest you spend some time reading about fair use and copyright law before you make any claims. Bhimaji (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imagebot

This section was blanked inadvertently by imagebot when it did a routine sweep to tag unused fair use images. If it happens again, just revert it. I am changing the video thumbnails to links per Fair use policy #9, fair use only applies to article namespace. Mfield (Oi!) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] As this appears to be getting nowhere

Dilip rajeev and/or Bhimaji, how about you create a proposed section here (including the video links only, not thumbnails) so that everyone can see what wording is being proposed. I am firmly of the opinion that is is much better and easier in disputes to create a sample section and talk it over with the text in front of everyone rather than arguing over what will be in the article at some point in future with no clear idea what the wording might be. Create a sandbox section and use it to establish a consensus BEFORE it might be inserted into the article rather than edit warring over wording and video inclusions after the fact. A few policy points once again... the fair use of the videos needs to be justified by their context in the article in conjunction with their attached rationales. This needs to be indisputable, fair use only works on this basis. Secondly, the videos can not be interpreted by WP editors, any opinions and deductions must be made by reliable sources. Drawing conclusions without them being attributable to sources is original research and/or synthesis. The videos can only be illustrative of points in the text, any discussion of their implications must be sourced from elsewhere. Mfield (Oi!) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, Usage of these videos don't serve any purpose to the article other than pushing an One sided View on the viewers. It does not make much sense adding a negative video presentation followed by a positive video presentation or vice-versa. I think the article will be much better off with out these POV pushing videos. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. The proposal was that the videos would illustrate various miracles. A Lingam video, an ash video, one about materializing a necklace, for example. There would not be a pro and a con video of each, but rather an attempt would be made to balance quality and viewpoints. The POV of the videos was not the focus. This constant discussion of the POV of the videos is barely on-topic. They are from reliable sources. Bhimaji (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Parameters and Outline Suggestions for the Article

What ever the case this article should not be an advertisement one one side, nor should it be an extension of an anti-Sathya Sai Baba attack site on the other side, nor should it assume guilt. It should reflect what is in reputable sources to a reasonable degree. We should work within these boundaries as well as the the WP:BLP, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Criticism and carefully and slowly build the article section by section. I think using these five parameters we can come up with a good article that is neither promotion nor an assault against Sathya Sai Baba. I propose we start to agree on an outline first. Any academic work starts out with an outline. My suggestions are Intro, Birth, Early Life, Transformation, Teachings, Miracles, Projects, Controversy, Present Day, Legacy. Then sub sections. Within each section, for example miracles, the information that refutes these claims can be there, just like the response to criticism in the controversy section. etc. I think either way we should start with the intro. This is the summary in a sense of the article, so I don't have a problem with the controversy mentioned it just shouldn't be elaborated on or look like a headline from a tabloid newspaper and be in proportion to the rest of the sections. We should work in the sand box until we get a consensus on the article. Lets get some suggestions. Sbs108 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Free Content

There are many issues here with regard to the Video; Not just fair use,there is a Non-Free content issue as well as issues regarding WP:BLP standards, WP:Criticism etc.Content showing clear bias may not be used as it furthers a non NPOV.

Multimedia is classified under "Unacceptable use" that means by default multimedia is unacceptable except in rare circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

This is what the policy says:

Unacceptable use

Multimedia 1)Excessive quantities of short audio clips in a single article. A smaller number may be appropriate if each is accompanied by commentary in the accompanying text. 2)A long audio excerpt, to illustrate a stylistic feature of a contemporary band; see above for acceptable limits. 3)A short video excerpt from a contemporary film, without sourced commentary in the accompanying text. The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).

Given the nature of the controversy on whether the miracles are real, it wouldn't be proper to ad videos which clearly make the claim of fakery and are not neutral. The only video of the three which does not assume fakery is the Lingam Materialization video which in my view is acceptable because is shows a "supposed" miracle and leaves it up to the viewer to decide if its real or fake." The section for which you want to add the videos is going to be very small compared with the body of the article. Three would be excessive with regards to the policy, not to mention again there still is the WP:BLP and WP:Criticism issue. Sbs108 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you won't even accept links of the videos at the bottom of the article shows a clear POV. I don't see how it could be any clearer.Sbs108 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you going on about? I never said I wouldn't accept the videos at the bottom of the article. I've been waiting for you to post the list of videos you thought should be in the article. I kept hearing people say "If we have any videos, we'll have people edit warring and putting in positive ones to balance the bad ones." Now I can't get anybody to post the list of positive videos that they want to see.

You are again claiming that the BBC is not a reliable source. You have previously claimed that the BBC committed an act of theft. Justify those statements or retract them. Bhimaji (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the claims that the BBC is not a reliable source or that the BBC committed theft? I don't see any such claims anywhere on this page? Are they elsewhere - can you supply some diffs? But as far as those points go, the BBC is most certainly a reliable source, and whether or not someone believes the BBC has committed any kind of theft has no bearing one way or the other on WPs claims of fair use of anything. It's simply not an issue for WP editors to worry about. There are enough issues here over this article for editors to worry about without anyone arguing over the purported conduct of the BBC. Let's everyone stick to discussing the merits of the videos themselves, their relevance in the article, and how that all relates to their fair use,. Mfield (Oi!) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[4] Seems to claim that the BBC didn't have permission to use the footage.

[5] Claims that the BBC and Danish documentaries are not neutral and have a "sole intention" and that they "assumed guilt."

I brought those issues up again because I get the impression that Sbs108 still has a fundamentally different understanding of the WP:NPOV and RS policies than I do. Comments still seem to be things like "They are reliable but biased." I know that I haven't contributed a lot of text to the article, but equally, Sbs108 is complaining about slanting of sources without apparently contributing much in the way of what s/he believes are un-biased sources. The videos are an excellent example - All of this "We will be swamped by videos if we include any" and we still don't have any.

Going back on topic, looking at WP:Fair Use:

1. There is no free equivalent that I am aware of.

2. The documentaries we are excerpting from are long, and contain huge amount of commentary beyond the short clips of Sai Baba. The clips do not detract from the marketability of the documentaries.

3. Minimal usage. The clips are the minimum needed to show the miracles.

4. Obviously met. Widely published.

5. I believe it meets WP content standards. Very hard to describe accurately.

8. It was significant in my understanding of the content. When I hear that somebody can perform a miracle, I want to know what it is. I read of one person who - I am not making this up - claimed to make small pieces of debris appear near railroad tracks. I think most of us can agree that isn't a very impressive miracle. Materializations - what materializes? Where? Next to his hands? In mid air? In crowds?

Sai Baba claims to be an avatar - an incarnation of God. He claims that he can perform miracles. It is claimed that there is video evidence of his miracles. His detractors claim that the same video is evidence of trickery. In my opinion, his miracles are a core part of the article and it is a much poorer article without such clear information. Bhimaji (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Bhimaji and believe the miracles are major part of the article but the article should be neutral with regards to whether they are true or not. Its really not videos I have a problem with, its their use to present a POV. Before there was undue weight with regards to criticism in the way they were presented. My question to Mfield is if the reliable source makes an opinion or unproven claim with regards the miracles. Is it valid to include in the article. For example a reliable source used in this article, The Arnold Schulman book recounts many miracles he witnessed first hand. He doesn't affirm that he belives them to be true nor does he asssume them to be fake. They are only mentioned. I think since the miracles seems to be the discussion here then lets work in the sandbox on this section and I think we can come to a consensus with regards to WP policy.207.137.2.162 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Sbs108 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like many other writers, Schulman reported a great deal of what devotees (and Sathya Sai Baba's close associates, Dr Gokak and Professor Kasturi) told him. Apart from the production of vibhuti and one case of a photograph (or ring) produced by Sathya Sai Baba for Schulman, which other miraculous incidents did Schulman witness firsthand? (Materialisation of vibhuti was not controversial in 1969-1970, when Schulman visited Puttaparthi, but it is now - as the debate about video evidence has reminded us.)

BTW, would someone please correct one of the longstanding errors in this article: Schulman's book makes it quite clear that he was not convinced that Sathya Sai Baba was divine and that he did not become a devotee. Ombudswiki (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I only the mentioned the book because its neutral in my opinion and a good source. If DTV (a "reliable" source) says he's faking (without any first hand knowledge) and this can be used then Schulman (a "reliable" source who actually witnessed first hand) accounts of vibhuti materialization can be used. He doesn't even consider that Baba is faking he just reports the miracle. He leaves it up to the reader to decide.I have one question for you. Have you read the book? because if you haven't then you shouldn't comment on it. So if you can honestly tell me you read the book we can have a conversation. He also experiences Baba's first hand knowledge of intimate details pertaining to his life, knowing full well that he never mentioned those details to anyone who might have told Baba. In the book he doesn't deny the overpowing feeling of love he felt in his experience of Baba. Yes he wasn't a "devotee" but honestly relates his experience without judgement.Sbs108 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Bhimaji, people have jobs and a life, I am already spending to much time on this, I don't have the time to do research at the moment and will get to it on the weekend. There are enough sources already used and presented that can be used, for example the Schulman book is an excellent "neutral" source. Even the "critical" sources have nuetral information in them..Sbs108 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Schulman's book, Baba

In the preceding Discussion Section, Sbs108, rather than answer a direct question from me, asked, somewhat belligerently, whether I have read the Schulman book. The answer is 'Yes' and I am happy to share with interested readers my bibliographical notes on the important 1971 book. It is up to them to read the book for themselves.

Schulman, Arnold, Baba, New York, Viking Press, 1971.

Arnold Schulman, a successful American scriptwriter, tells us he was irresistibly attracted by Sathya Sai Baba’s reputation in 1969. His book, which bears the shortest title of all the hundreds of books on SSB, has long been out of print and is virtually forgotten. Published in the same year as Howard Murphet’s first book (which is still in print), this well written book is important as an early basically favourable (but not hagiographical) account of Sathya Sai Baba by a Westerner. In fact, these were the first two books by “Western” writers (both experienced in different fields and used to research methods). It is probably fair (as well as relevant) to add that the majority of the hundreds of pro-Sathya Sai Baba books since then have been written with far less attention to careful research and impartiality.

Unlike devotee literature, this work shows the writer’s independent stance and contains important clues for researchers. Also, Schulman is erroneously claimed by both devotees (who may not have read the book) and Wikipedia to be a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. The following examples illustrate how untrue this claim is.

1. When Dr. Gokak [Gokok in his text] tells him on his arrival for his carefully planned second visit in 1970 that Baba is an avatar and says so, Schulman is surprised and alarmed. He accepts the miracle stories he hears but only as special yogic powers. "That was the biggest assumption the writer was prepared to accept." Then Gokak continues, "For a man to say such a thing he must either be mad or else ... He is God." "A third alternative immediately occurred to the writer: Suppose Baba were neither mad nor God but simply a very talented charlatan cleverly utilizing the Indian readiness to accept the idea of living avatars?" (p.14)

2. After his six weeks of efficient research at the ashrams and in Bangalore, and contact with Kasturi, Gokak (both as spokespersons and interpreters) and Sathya Sai Baba, Schulman seems convinced "that there was nothing the writer could think of that would allow him to accept the idea that this person with the Afro hairdo and the orange dress could actually, literally, be God." (171)

3. While gathering his research material, the writer became suspicious of some devotees "who seemed to be repeating monologues they had perfected years ago. Others gave the impression they were improvising the stories as they went along." (p. 21)

4. Unlike virtually all other Sathya Sai Baba writers, Schulman observed that: "In trying to discover what Sathya’s childhood was like, the writer ran across every possible variation from "he was an ordinary child, like the rest of us" to stories of precocious saintliness which told of how, when he was only five years old, he frequently went without food so that he could sneak it out of the house and give it to the beggars and blind men of the village." (p. 125)

5. Other frank observations by Schulman further underline why his (plausible) version never became the accepted truth about young Sathya Narayana. For example, "It was not possible to document with certifiable evidence much of Baba’s biography" (p. 123). And: "For every story about Baba’s childhood there are any number of conflicting stories and, at this point, the writer discovered, it is no longer possible to sift out the facts from the legend. For one thing Baba has forbidden his family and devotees to talk about his childhood ..." and " 'they all live in terror of Baba,' as one of his most devoted followers told the writer." (p. 122) Their fear is of Sathya Sai Baba’s usual punishment for those who make mistakes: ignoring them totally.

6. Also, instead of swallowing and regurgitating Kasturi’s cobra incident (which was already one of the accepted myths), Schulman reports that one of Sathya Sai Baba's sisters had told him (presumably through an interpreter) that there was no cobra under the blanket after Sathya Narayana's birth but that some hours later a cobra was seen outside the house – a sight not uncommon in the remote Indian village. On such differences are myths based. (There seems to be absolutely no reason for Schulman to invent this, nor for the translation to be wrong.) The difference between the Kasturi and Schulman versions of the event neatly encapsulates the serious problems posed by the official biography of Sathya Sai Baba.

7. Further food for thought and research is presented in the case of his interviews with one of Sathya Sai Baba's sisters when Schulman had to use two interpreters, one from her Telugu into Hindi and the other from the first interpreter’s Hindi into English. The writer shrewdly observes that during this time-consuming process, "what the writer was told the sister said might very well have been something quite different from what she actually said" (p. 124).

8. Equally untypical of devotee accounts is Schulman’s suspicion of Sathya Sai Baba’s propensity for enigmatic or sententious pronouncements which often sound meaningless (but which are invested with important esoteric meaning by his devotees). In an interview reported on pages 108-110, during most of which Gokak is interpreting for SSB, the latter comments in English, "Far is not important. No far, no near, no near. Dear, only dear is important" (p.110). In the final interview, Schulman tells Sathya Sai Baba, "I don't understand anything I've seen." "Baba laughed. 'Appearance is not different from emptiness,' Baba said, struggling for the words in English, 'Yet within emptiness there is no appearance.'" Not surprisingly, Schulman honestly informs his readers that "The writer ... did not understand and he resisted the temptation to pretend that he did" (p. 168). On another occasion, Schulman has the following 'politically incorrect' thought about Sathya Sai Baba's alleged omniscience: "... if he’s God, didn't he know how undeveloped I was spiritually when he agreed to let me write the book in the first place?" (p. 106) Ombudswiki (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If I came off as belligerent , I sincerely apologize, its easy to get carried away while working on this article. I think we can agree to disagree in a civil manner as this is the only way the article is going to go anywhere. The problem is that any source used in this article will be challenged according to WP editors point of view. I got a different feeling than you when I read the book.My feeling was that he couldn't doubt there was something extraordinary about Sai Baba, yet couldn't bring himself to entertain any belief that he actually might be God. I don't think he affirmed or denied anything. He just related his experience. yours Sbs108 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Notes on Biographies of Living Persons

As a prelude to probable further comments (and while allowing myself minimal comment on these arcane Wikipedia rules), may I offer for contributors’ consideration, while they meditate in preparation for the lifting of the present Admin protection embargo on the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba article, the following excerpts from Wikipedia’s prescriptions on Biographies of Living Persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons) The future course of the article may be affected by readers’ reactions.

Writing style The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. [Comment: Primary sources seem to be dealt with, at least partially, below (under Using the subject as a self-published source.)]

Criticism and praise Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. [Bold type added. In controversial topics, this Wikipedia requirement must be applied equitably.] When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

Using the subject as a self-published source [Comment: This presumably applies not only to Sathya Sai Baba but to his official – and perhaps unofficial - spokespersons.]

Main article: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

1. it 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 that the subject actually authored it;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published. [Comment: What is the status of the subject’s own publishing house, or, in a more recent extension, Internet website?]

Well-known public figures Policy shortcut: WP:WELLKNOWN

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Maintaining biographies of living persons Report any BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. As a continuously updated encyclopedia, Wikipedia naturally contains many thousands of articles about living persons, both widely and less widely known. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible. On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it. Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic.

Blocking Main article: Wikipedia:Blocking policy Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. The blocking policy has full information. [Comment: An incentive to check the sources offered for contributors' assertions.] Ombudswiki (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

saibaba! i think he don't know what is God he is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian Indian Indian (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On Building Consensus-No Validity to Voting

The other issue with this article among others is how to build a consensus with editors who have different perspectives, writing styles and reasoning styles. Here are some of the WP guidlines on consensus. Voting is not a way to get consensus. I can't find anything that says that "voting" is a valid wiki-process as user Dilip_Rajeev claims. In fact the article states.

"Consensus is not in numbers

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons

It further states:

"Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer.That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal and ethical restrictions."

"Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."Sbs108 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Just consider this an opportunity for editors to present their perspectives ( along with supporting rationale) on the matter. And we certainly can leverage the outcome of it to build consensus among "reasonable editors." Just think of it as established, active users sharing their perspectives - I don't think there is any real issue here.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba Sandbox

I've set up a sandbox to work out major changes and conflicting issues regarding this page. There is a link from my user page. The link is Sai Baba Sandbox.Sbs108 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I request that all the involved editors to participate in the Sathya Sai Baba article Sandbox rather than edit-warring in the actual article as there is no consensus yet in a number of issues. This sandbox copy is from OnoPearls sandbox copy on the Sathya Sai Baba article before he deleted it.

Admin made it very clear that if this edit-warring continues and if we don't work it out the article will be placed under "Article Probation" . Radiantenergy (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I began to read this new Sandbox version and stopped at the end of the second section. It is obvious that much more basic reading on the topic must be carried out before proceeding further with this Sandbox project.

Consider these two points in the first two sections:

"1. He is considered by his followers to be an avatar and the reincarnation of the saint Sai Baba of Shirdi.[8]"

If you read his Discourses, especially the first 10 Volumes, you will see that this devotee belief is based on Sathya Sai Baba's own very strong repeated claims to Divinity, reincarnation, being the Avatar of the Age, the Father of Jesus Christ, etc. These absolutely basic and verifiable biographical facts must not be hidden in this way.

2. "Virtually all existing accounts of Sathya Sai Baba's life are based on the writings of the late secretary of Sai Baba, professor Narayana Kasturi. [9]"

Again, your basic reading is deficient. You cannot write an encyclopedia article about Sathya Sai Baba without adequate reference to the following fundamental biographical contribution:

Padmanaban, R. et al , Love is My Form. Vol. 1 The Advent (1926-1950). Prasanthi Nilayam, Sai Towers, 2000. [Often referred to as LIMF]

Admittedly, the 600-page large format illustrated book follows Kasturi’s simplistic hagiography, like so many other writers, but it does introduce new elements. Consider the following observations before consulting the unjustly ignored (devotee) book itself (LIMF). This should result in an improved first two sections and a reconsideration of other aspects of his first 26 years of life.

Love is My Form. Volume 1. The Advent (1926-1950) Written by a team of devotees headed by a phenomenally successful Puttaparthi publisher of Sathya Sai Baba books (and ex-photographer of the guru), this is certainly not a book critical of Sathya Sai Baba. It was intended to be the first of a series of definitive biographies of Sathya Sai Baba and, although still basically hagiographical (and heavily dependent on Kasturi’s work), it is well researched and contains some essential new information about Sathya Sai Baba, including photostats of school register pages, and a wealth of old photographs. Some of this new material (including the photostats and photographs) contradicts or challenges official data, especially when taken in conjunction with other scraps of evidence available in the memoirs of early devotees of Sathya Sai Baba and one or two other writers. Examples of these important new biographical insights are: 1990s recorded interviews with (aged) early devotees; the years of Sathya Sai Baba ’s schooling; the date of the two Declarations of Sathya Sai Baba’s Mission before leaving school in Uravakonda (which turns out to be 1943, not 1940, as the Sathya Sai Organisation claims), the dating of some early photographs of SSB, local knowledge about Shirdi Sai Baba in the 1940s and a few other details from the remote early years of Sathya Sai Baba’s Mission, for which Kasturi’s first volume had hitherto been the main flimsy source (and much-quoted ‘Gospel’). The result (a large format, lavishly illustrated 600-page tome) is a welcome and necessary addition to the literature on the early biography of Sathya Sai Baba by devotees. In spite of its archival importance, the book has so far received scant attention from academics, critics, Wikipedia editors, and devotees. Some of the latter, possibly because of the new information on display, voiced disapproval of the volume in the Prasanthi Nilayam ashram as soon as it was published. A recent Sathya Sai Baba apologist and propagandist has tried to discredit the volume on the unconvincing grounds that it is a ‘commercial’ publication with a scandalously high price.

Here is part of the original release note from Sai Towers in October 2000: "Sai Towers Publishing proudly announces the release of the much awaited book ‘The Advent’, the first volume in the series, LOVE IS MY FORM – A Biographical series of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. "Sri Sathya Sai Baba has been the most talked about avatar of the age – and perhaps the most photographed. Here is the unfolding of glorious odyssey, picking up photographs, letters and other documents along the way to relate the most enchanting life story of Baba. In the first twenty five years of the life that the book studies, a group of eminent researchers stitch together recorded history and documented interviews of contemporaries narrating landmark events and personal experiences to make the book a rare publication."

The following details are taken from a Sai Towers advertisement for the LIMF series:

"Currently, research is progressing on the following volumes. To share the Divine Graciousness we offer you, our esteemed customers, a unique scheme. Work on each volume is proceeding rapidly. Tentative Dates of Release: Vol 2 (1951 - 1960) - 23/11/2002 Vol 3 (1961 - 1970) - 23/11/2003 Vol 4 (1971 - 1980) - 23/11/2004 Vol 5 (1981 - 1990) - 23/11/2005 Vol 6 (1991 - 2000) - 23/11/2006” This ambitious project to publish five more volumes of this biographical series (one per decade of the guru’s life), which was well advanced, was abruptly abandoned, without explanation, a year or two after the publication of this sole volume, to the incalculable detriment of independent research on the extraordinary claims of the South Indian guru.

While editors are considering where they wish to take this flawed article on Sathya Sai Baba, they are, once more, urged to make use of the many available reputable sources of which they seem oblivious. See, for example: Bibliography of Books about Sathya Sai Baba and [[6]]

Ombudswiki (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this book, though I do not have it in my possesion. Why don't you add good information to the article if you have it?Sbs108 (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You say you have seen the book (LIMF). But what did you gain from looking at it? How much did you read? Did you not see that it was a valuable source, with new information and based on wider reasearch than Kasturi's simplistic hagiography? Have you mentioned it in your comments on this page? Do you have access to a copy?

In answer to your suggestion and question:

Yes, I do possess a copy, and am reasonably familiar with its contents, so, on the surface, yours might seem a reasonable request. However, unless you, and other willing contributors, are willing to read and evaluate this book - Love is My Form - and the many other relevant ones, including (especially) Sathya Sai Baba's Discourses - how can you fairly check and pass comment on what I (or anyone else) might post with reference to it?

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

I do not mind giving advice of this sort, but I do not have the time or inclination that others have to add to (or subtract from) the article itself and then waste valuable time defending my contributions on a daily basis against anyone who chooses to tinker with them, delete them or filibuster about them. For that reason, and others, I have made a point of avoiding as far as possible direct intervention in the article itself. That is up to you and other volunteers who enjoy such activities. However, I do keep an intermittent watch on the site. And I shall continue to comment - or even contribute, perhaps - according to my own judgement. So far, my substantial bibliographical suggestions, clearly made on more than one occasion, have not been heeded. This simply reinforces my somewhat pessimistic view about spending time on contributing anything of substance to a controversial topic on Wikipedia.

I hope all this is of some personal and general assistance but it has taken up too much of my time this week - so far without any tangible result. I will call back to check the article again in about a week's time. Ciao! Ombudswiki (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki , it is not up to those of us that actually edit this page to take information that you so graciously offer and put it in this article. Thankfully, that is not how Wikipedia works. If you want something you found to be put in this article, then you are more than welcome to put it there yourself. But do not come onto the talk page and patronize us for for not doing more work on this article, or for not going out and spending hours searching the web for "the reputable Sathya Sai Baba literature", then spending days or weeks reading said literature. No, it is up to you to take the initiative to put your knowledge to good use, and to put the information you know on the page. However, if you would rather just come to the talk page and pass judgement on all the editors that already spend too much time editing this article instead of, I don't know, actually contributing to the page, on behalf of all of the editors, don't. As shocking as it may be, the majority of the people that edit this page do have a life outside Wikipedia, and do not have time to devote to do your bidding. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki-Some people maintain whole web sites devoted to criticizing Sai Baba. They find value in time spent on that. They can do whatever they please on their own web sites so why come here and get challenged if they don't have to? Knowing Sai Baba comes from the heart, I go by my own experience not the tales of others. Personally I don't care what any biography says or doesn't say about him, but for the sake of this article, I agree with you, we have to use what's available to get the best most accurate picture possible with regards to public opinion and any reasonably verifiable fact. What should be defended is the integrity of the article, not any one users content. No picture or biography will be 100% perfect and correct.Wikipedia will always be half truth because the world is shaped as much by opinion of events as the actual events themselves. Even if my changes were to be wiped out, I wouldn't feel like this is a waste of my time because there is nobility in defending the one you love. The act itself is the reward. So to sum up, add good content and others will defend it if it improves the article. They may change it, but that is Wikipedia.yours Sbs108 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The use of the word "Controversial" in the first line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, here are some select references from the page that affirm that he is a controversial figure. [7][8][9][10]Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you for the source references...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the beginning, J929 wrote:

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

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

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

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

"Controversy surrounds Sai Baba"

and

"Sai Baba is a controversial..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merriam Webster gives these definitions:

1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious

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

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

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

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

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

dear onopearls,

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

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

please elaborate on your new stance.

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

i have disproven your last BBC statement. agreed?

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

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

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

dear bhijami,

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

do we agree?

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

J929:

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

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

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

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

"A policy paper entitled “Finding Common Ground” published by the Ontario Ministry of Education, states:

“Quality education includes the education of the heart as well as the head; it includes a focus on the whole person—the cognitive, affective and behavioural domains of learning. It means preparing students to be concerned citizens who have empathy and respect for people within their increasingly diverse communities. It means providing opportunities for students to understand deeply the importance of civic engagement and what it means to be a global citizen in an increasingly interdependent global community. An approach to teaching that is infused with character development is education at its best.” 

- Avis Glaze, 2006 " http://media.radiosai.org/Journals/Vol_05/01JUN07/03-coverstory-final.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please address this concern first!!

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

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

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

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

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

Radiantenergy:

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

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

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

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

Bhimaji, a correct defintion of the root of controversial was prodided, its root is controversy. what then do provide the conjugated definition "::1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious"

as stated in the definiton you provided "arousing controversy", controversy being defined as "1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controversy

Sai Baba is not first and foremost controversial. There is opinionated versions in the interpretation of events around him. that is all. 

i have disproven all the sources that onopearls has provided and shown that the word as it is right now, is not properly quoted annotated. have you read the last several entries , and onopearls lack of response to the rebuttles? what may i ask you is wrong with " Sathay Sai Baba is a spiritual and religious figure." in terms of english or grammer. does this adhere to "exceedingly uncommon English words"

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

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

dear onopearls,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"proper english"?

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

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

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

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

please address the annotation topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The word controversial

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestions on Merging of Miracle Sections

I think the merging of the two miracle sections, claims and refutation of claims should be merged into one whole section named Claims of Materializations and Miracles, something like that. Anybody want to comment for or against before I make the change. I think it will flow better if the two are weaved together.I think the subject is more nuanced than these two blanket titles.Sbs108 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember right the earlier old template - January 7th version before Dilip's massive edits had a section titled as "Claims of Materializations and Miracles". It had everything under that section both miracles and refutation of claims. I think its a good suggestion. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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