Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

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

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

Please, correct the passage.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

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

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

Just asking. I'd like to hear everyone.

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

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

Yes very true, I can't believe what's been done to this article, its such a crime. But again those who believe believe and those who don't don't, so in reality the gross negativity of this article doesn't do anything and causes no damage whatsoever to Sai Baba. As Sai Baba says, "just because dogs bark at the moon, does that make it any less beautiful?." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbs108 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are both so upset by this article. However, your expressing your displeasure without taking action makes no sense to me. I welcome you all to come and work together to edit this article to better reflect Sai Baba. No, this does not mean you should erase everything on the page and add information that was basically copied from one of the numerous articles about Sai Baba and his organization (which has happened several times). You can find reliable sources that have information relevant to the article, add information, and reference it properly. Only then can we start on the road to bringing this article back to a point where it is as good as or better than it was before. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ono, yes I will slowly try to help.I am just learning how to use wikipedia. Look I have no problem with people posting criticisms, but as anyone can tell this article is not scholarly and in fact is the work a very few people with a lot of venom and time on their hands. Reason will tell you that there are people with grudges and axes to grind who are controlling this article. The reason that so many millions of devotees are not focused on improving this article is that actual devotees of Sai Baba are out trying to make positive difference in the world instead of focusing on this. Baba teaches us to Love All and Serve All. This article makes Baba look like someone worse than Hitler or some other madman. Let me make a point, at no time in Baba's life has there been a case against Sai Baba and he has never been convicted of any crime. This is a fact.This should be clearly stated. (I can not edit the very beginning of the article to clearly state this fact). The funny thing is that people have been going after Sai Baba since he was 13 years old. (Just like they tried to Kill Jesus, many people have tried to Kill and de-fame Sai Baba.I am using this parable to show that nothing and no one can slow or stop Sai Baba's humanitarian mission. This is another reason why nobody has come forward to do anything about this article.) The fact is that Sai Baba is revered and beloved by India's most respected politicians as well as an untold amount of people. In fact the President of India just paid Sai Baba a visit. Onepearls, since you are the moderator you should go to India and see for yourself who Sai Baba is. I am not trying to convince you or anything but if you go and see Sai Baba you will at least have an understanding of the immense love people have for Sai Baba and the immense love he exudes. You will also understand why there is controversy. Sbs108 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

=

nope this artcles is extreamely biased,i thought wikipedia is decent and balanced which i know now that it is not...it can be controlled by certain people with certain agenda.Agenda which definetly not based on truthSureshnaidu (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)SURESHNAIDU

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

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

references

)

Birthday of Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba's birthday is celebrated each year on 23 November. His date of birth was 23 November 1926 - see Sai Baba Man of Miracles by Howard Murphet Macmillan India Limited 1972. Birthday23 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Murphet is not a reliable source. Andries (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How is Murphet not a reliable source? He spent 40 years with Baba and wrote at least 5 books? If people go to Baba once or twice and then write a negative portrayal and that is used as a source, then certainly people who have spent 30-40 years with Baba are reliable sources. There is no bias in people's accounts, people relate their experiences and they are valid. The thing is that the amount of positive experiences with Baba far far outweigh the negative. I am not negating people's negative experience but that is there opinion only.Sbs108 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Question:What is unencyclopedic

How is that the news about President of India visiting Sathya Sai Baba published in well reputed newspaper unencyclopedic? User:Dilip_Rajeev is removing well sourced positive information from the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=289307967&oldid=289307516 This is merely pushing POV. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The section with the title "President Visit." Could such a section be, in any way, encyclopaedic? And what exact purpose does it serve there, presented like that? The content itself was unencyclopaedic - on top of that, the source presented was so ambiguous, "Express news service" - what is that supposed to convey?

What its supposed to convey is that regardless of these false allegations the President of India bowed her head at Sai Baba's feet. When the President of India gives acknowledgement to Sai Baba, it is important given the state of this articleSbs108 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Could you point out where the arbcom said Bcskeptics is "unreliable"? Am restoring the content sourced to Dale Bayerstein's paper for now. It may please be removed after pointing out the arbcom statement to the effect. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If Dale Bayerstein is unrealiable, and we judge by that standard, entire sections at the bottom of the articles, Sai Baba response etc. - all will have to be removed. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

President visiting Sathya Sai Baba was published in Express Buzz (www.expressbuzz.com). Express Buzz is the website of 'The New Indian Express', the prominent South India-based English-language daily. It is part of the Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, and the legacy of the Late Shri Ramnath Goenka. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Dale Beyerstein was declared as a "Self Published" and "Unreliable Source" by WIkipedia Reliable Source Noticeboard. I would suggest you read the update on talk page before adding back unreliable sources back into the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Why_Dale_Beyerstein_cannot_be_used_as_a_source.

Response to Criticism is sourced to well published sources. Sathya Sai Baba response was published in Times of India. You cannot just remove contents published in well published sources based on your POV. That's just vandalism!! Radiantenergy (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Why would fringe-news stuff have to be added to an encyclopedia under a prominent sub-title?

• 2. I would like to see the original discussion - not selected comments copy-pasted on talk. The question is - Were there also comments saying the source is indeed of a good quality? Till then, I think we must keep the material since it contributes significantly to the subject.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33. The consensus by that appears to be that bcskeptics isnt a reliable source. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see the WP:RS discussion on the same subject where a user comments: "The article would be much poorer without that info" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Dale_Beyerstein_and_Basava_Premananda Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let know what your personal perspective on the topic is. Isn't removing such a study while keeping even fringe-news articles as source, biased? Aren't those who are attempting to do this clearly trying get info removed? Please share your thoughts. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom did not comment on Bayerstein

Ono, your edit summary that Bayerstein was being removed as per arbom's "final decision" being a factually inaccurate claim, I reverted that particular edit. If you are removing it, kindly state accurately that you r doing it as per a WP:RS comment. Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There are people removing anything that is positive about Sai Baba. The point is the President of India visited Sai Baba, it doesn't matter what the source is, that is a fact. Ask anybody who lives in India and reads the news. There is a photo of the President of India with Sai Baba. The point is that the viscious people behind this article can not stand to hear anything that might blow the cover on their lie. Who is monitoring this article anyway? I cant believe the article has fallen so low. Cant this moderator see through the tactics used. The fact is that its just a few people (who are shouting the loudest) who hate Sai Baba. The "allegations" are a blip and nonsensical. Sai Baba is flourishing like never before and there is no threat against him coming from any quarter.Sbs108 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I believe that now may be the time to once more request arbitration, as Dilip Rajeev and Radiantenergy both appear to have a conflict of interest relating to this article, similar to Andries. If we cant work it out on the talk page, outside help may be needed. Thanks, Ono (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is some good reason to go back to the arbcom because the article has not improved since the arbcom has imposed a topic ban. Not a single version after the topic ban is significantly better than before the topic ban. Most versions are significantly worse than before the topic ban. The topic ban removed the most active and knowledgeable editors. Andries 08:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we ought to make sincere, concerted attempts at improving the article and , if that fails, ask for outside help. To straighten things out here, in my opinion, we need to first ensure quality sources and content are not blanked out. And the criterion for judging a source's quality has to be relative - that is, in comparison with other sources available and the sources being used in the article. If we go out blanking every source in such a manner, we will soon be left with no quality sources or academic studies to draw from. That is a situation we must avoid at all costs. Bayerstein for instance, is one of the two or three academic studies available on the topic. A source extensively referred to by all critical commentators.

In addition we need to ensure every edit done in honest manner - watch out for misleading summaries etc. Further, we can't blank things out giving false claims. In the past couple of days, Bayerstein was blanked out 3-4 times with the false claim that it was on Arbcom's decision that it was being blanked. If even major changes like this and removal of info is based on inaccurate claims, how could we ever hope to take the article to a quality state?

I suggest that we work things out section by section. Once we are done with a section, the tags may be removed. Users who have added the POV tags, I believe, are obliged to point out, in specific, the perceived issues that lead them to add the tag. If they fail to do so , I think the tags will have to be eventually removed.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to see this article get into an edit war. I don't think that Radiantenergy has an accurate understanding of the general consensus here. I don't like to get personal, but I felt that his previous arguments about the reliability of sources were somewhat biased and inaccurate. He did not believe that endemic typographical and grammatical mistakes in every single article raised a question of the publication's reliability. I think that the discussions here are going to have to get more detailed about what we can and can't use specific sources for. Sources are rarely 'binary', totally good for anything or invalid for anything. I think we are going to have to get more granular. Bhimaji (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the first request to Wikipedia Realiable Source Notice Board about Dale Beyerstein there was no response other than comments from editors working in this article . In the second request to Wikipedia Reliable Source Notice Board about Dale Beyerstein there was a clear response from the wikipedia reliable source notice board stating "Dale Beyerstein is a self published source". And also stating "Its not reliable source". Link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Request_for_help_in_determining_if_this_source_is_reliable Radiantenergy (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That discussion does not say what you seem to think it says:

"Since the reference only purports to be "adapted from the book by Dale Beyerstein", the source is not the book by Dale Beyerstein..."

The finding was not a comment on Beyerstein's work, but rather on an adaptation of it. RS discussions can get technical. Accuracy and precision are important. Please try not to mis-represent what other people are saying. Bhimaji (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Elsewhere above on this Discussion page, Bhimaji made this comment: "I've started reading Prof. Beyerstein's paper. So far, it seems very well researched, with citations to many independently verifiable sources. The article would be much poorer without that info." Bhimaji|21:57, 7 April 2009.

This shows that Bhimaji has taken the trouble to track down and begin to read the 100 page academic study by Professor Beyerstein, and the verifiable evidence that the Professor presents. That is a positive step in the attempt to improve this very mediocre article. How many others who have commented so often on this topic, especially those who repeatedly call for the removal of this important bibliographical reference with citations from the Discourses of Sathya Sai Baba (which are hardly mentioned in this article), have actually seen and read the Professor's study? If they have not done so, now is surely the time. Continued wilful neglect would be unencyclopedic behavior, would it not? Ombudswiki (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki, I suggest you read wp:reliable source before pleading with the editors of this article to readd that info. It is obviously not a reliable source, as it isnt backed up by other reliable sources (it appears that it is self published). Per wikipedia standards, the beyerstein article does not meet the criterion as a reliable source. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ono / Onopearls. The book-length study, in its journal form, is not self-published. Have you seen it? If not, would you mind examining it? I'll return next week for your answer. Ombudswiki (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a portion provided for the arbcom. From that, they made their decision. Until they have overturned it, we cannot use the source. And did you read wp:reliable sources? I think it is pretty clear from that page that beyerstein, and by extension bcskeptics, are not reliable sources. Thanks, Ono (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(To Onopearls) If you are genuinely interested in adding to the sum total of verifiable information in this substandard article, should you not take the time and effort to read a substantial amount of the analysis yourself, rather than relying on a sample read by others. Please tell us what you think of the Beyerstein material. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have offered enough of my opinion on Beyerstein. I won't get involved in an edit war over adding/leaving out his material. I can only offer what the ArbCom said. And why is it that you believe I haven't "read a substantial amount of the analysis"? I am in no way relying on others, I was just trying to provide a way for banned editors to somehow contribute to this article. I don't believe I am relying on anyone in that way, rather I am trying to give all editors equal opportunity to bring this article back to a standard acceptable of Wikipedia. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

" Bringing back to a standard acceptable ..." sounds like an unrealistic value judgement of the previous unsatisfactory forms of this article. At what stage was it acceptable to Wikipedia and its readers? However, as a step on the path to achieving a higher level for this article, I will repeat my question in a slightly different way: Are you aware of the nature, the bibliographical references and the exact contents of the 100-page Beyerstein analysis or not? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You did not ask that in your first response. This article was acceptable to Wikipedia and its readers before the entire article became slanted in a negative manner toward Sathya Sai Baba. As it stands, this is not an article fit for an encyclopedia. I do not know how many times I can say this, but my opinion on Beyerstein's article, which is undoubtedly what you are trying to get by asking if I have read the bibliography of his work, is inconsequential. If the ArbCom say's that it is not a RS, there is no need dwelling on it. And for the record, yes. I am aware of the exact content of the piece. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your answers are becoming more and more revealing. Just two short points before I opt out of this exchange of viewpoints. You are therefore welcome to have the last word - but I do hope you will think seriously about the topics that have arisen, which transcend this minor article and are more widely applicable to your other Wikipedia contributions.

1.There is no doubt in my mind that this Sathya Sai Baba article has never reached the level of an encyclopedic article! Partly because the myriad contributors have ignored the main reputable sources, including the millions of (freely available) words by Sathya Sai Baba himself.

2. If you are really aware of the content of the Beyerstein study and still see it as irrelevant to a description of Sathya Sai Baba (unlike the POV works of his hagiographers and devotees), your grasp of the topic and your independence are bound to be doubted by anyone with a minimal familiarity with the vast literature on SSB. I'm sorry if this is news to you. Maybe it's time for you to do some further reading if you really wish to exert a positive influence on the shape of this perennially substandard article. It's never too late. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said the article was irrelevant. I do, however, firmly stand behind the ArbCom's decision to ban the information from this page. On the article: irrelevant to a description of Sathya Sai Baba (unlike the POV works of his hagiographers and devotees) You claim that the works of his followers are POV. However, you can claim that Beyerstein is completely neutral on the subject? He, just like Sai Baba's followers, have a point of view on the subject, his being in a negative manner. You cannot sit there and honestly claim that his words are of any more worth or depth than those of a Sai Baba follower.

your grasp of the topic and your independence are bound to be doubted by anyone with a minimal familiarity with the vast literature on SSB And why is that? I cannot ascertain, from your replies anyway, what gives you the right to make that assertion. Is it because I refute the neutrality of Dale Beyerstein, who appears to be the leader of a witch hunt against SSB? I highly doubt that.

Maybe it's time for you to do some further reading if you really wish to exert a positive influence on the shape of this perennially substandard article My main task, so far, has been in reverting the edits on this article that appear to be unconstructive. I fail to see how I haven't exerted a so-called "positive influence" on this substandard article. It may just be me, and I certainly hope it is, but your condescending tone, coupled with your overt attempt to talk down to me, is incredibly offensive and extremely rude. I should remind you that all Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assume good faith. but I do hope you will think seriously about the topics that have arisen, which transcend this minor article and are more widely applicable to your other Wikipedia contributions I do hope that you are not calling my contributions to Wikipedia into question. You are welcome to judge my record for yourself, but I believe you will find that I have never been accused of having a conflict of interest, or of editing with a point of view. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tags

There are over a dozen tags added in this article! On top of the article, on top of each section, on top of each subsection - and the content in some of these sections seem quite well sourced. Could you please specifically point out the issues that lead you to put up the tags so that the issues may be fixed. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Paragraph needs an edit to explain that Sai Baba has NEVER been charged or convicted of any crime-Fact

someone removed my edit about the president of India visiting Sai Baba. WHat is wrong with that? This article is ridiculous. Also in the front section that can't seem to be edited needs to clearly state that Sai Baba has never been charged with a crime nor has he convicted of any wrong doing... since it is a fact. The other information is only speculation and has never been proven.Sbs108 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jens Sethi filed a complaint against SSB in Munich, Germany. Andries (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He has never been convicted of any crime and the allegations have never been proven. What is there not to understand? Don't you know people have been trying to kill and malign Sai Baba ever since he was a little boy. Do you why? because he molested boys...no...because as soon as he starting doing good and exposing untruth he started making enemies, just as Jesus did. When they couldn't disprove Jesus's healings and miracles they said it was the work of the Devil. The same thing is true today with Sai Baba, but that's not the point. The point is to present an accurate picture of Sai Baba, critisicm is fine as long as its in its own section, not scattered through out the article. User:Sbs108|Sbs108]] (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the Second paragraph is written badly. It starts as follows -

• Allegations of sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround Sathyanarayana Raju. What murder? Sathya Sai Baba is directly accused of murder when he did not commit one. . This statement is wrong or may be wrongly phrased. This has to be corrected or removed.
• The next statement says "According to the BBC, "The scale of the abuse has caused alarm around the world... Governments around the world are deeply concerned and are beginning to take action, warning their citizens about Sai Baba.". This is repeated atleast 3 times in the article. First in the introduction and then in the section "Reports of Sexual Abuse" and again in the subarticle - "Allegations of homosexual Abuse by Sathya Sai Baba". I don't see why the same statement should be repeated so many times in the same article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So what?

• [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.26.136 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to US Consular warning in second paragraph needs to be removed.-Consular page no longer carries warning.

The warning is no longer on the India country specific information page under "crime" where it previously was.Sbs108 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Its true that the warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh and all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba in the Consular Sheet has been removed. Here's the latest 2009 Consular Sheet released by the US Department of State in February 2009 and there is no travel warning to either Andhra Pradesh nor any indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba under the crime section. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime. I have also started a discussion about this in the reliable source notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question:Can_an_articles_be_updated_as_per_the_new_2009_Consular_Travel_Warning_For_India.3F. So far the verdict has been to exclude this information as it is a BLP concern. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should be based on reputable secondary source article, such as the BBC that mentions the travel warning, see WP:RS. It should not be based on primary source material, such as the travel warning. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. In addition to the statement of the BBC about the travel warning, I thinkwe can and should mention nevertheless that as of 2009 the travel warning is no longer there.Andries (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sai

It is not necessary to say lies. And who does not trust, let will go to him. --Soham-Sasha (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Raising of Funds Section Should be removed

This section erroneously gives the impression that there is impropriety in the way the organization collects and handles funds and donations. There is no factual proof that there is any wrongdoing with regards to funds donated to the ashram. For example the last sentence says "Joseph Edamaruku states:He raises enormous amounts of money from India and around the world. We do not believe claims that it is spent on hospitals and charitable works." First who is Joseph Edamaruku? and second this statement is undeniably just one person's opinion with no factual proof whatsoever.The section also claims that the Sai Organization wants to some how "claim" millions from the Masons. This section serves no purpose. I ask that the moderator agree to its removal.Sbs108 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section is well sourced, with The Times and and an apparent expert on the matter as citations. I do not believe that it should be removed completely. However, it should be cut down, and eventually merged (along with the 5 pages of the criticism sections) into a much more condensed version. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is sourced to "M. Seetha Shailaj - (29 November 2000). "Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can". I don't know how reliable this source is? It could very well be self-published source. There is no reference or link from where this article was published. I do agree that the second paragraph is well sourced to the The Times. As you suggested we can trim it. May be make it more neutral in tone. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how reliable he is. He is a staff writer for a relatively small Indian magazine (about 120k circulation worldwide, which is minute, considering the size of India.) It is mainly a opinion magazine, and it is apparently "independent". That may or may not mean it is self published. All of the information about SSB on the website appears to be critical of him, which would hardly make them a neutral/objective magazine. I'll put the magazine into the Reliable Source noticeboard for feedback. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Materializations and other miracles

Since the sub section is under Beliefs and practices of followers, the criticism in that section should, in my opinion, be moved to the criticism and controversy section of the page, under a new sub section about claims that his materializations and miracles are faked. It would be a part of removing the criticism that dilip sprinkled throughout the article, and placing it under one well defined section. Any comments? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The current Criticism and Controversy section is very huge. Moving more sections under it will make it unmanagable. I would suggest to look at the earlier version before White_Adept changed the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463. There was a section which was termed as "Reported Miracles" which described miracles and also it had criticism in more neutral terms. May be we can simulate something like that. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My earlier comments state that this is the start of condensing the ridiculously bloated criticisms and controversies section to a more manageable size. I believe that we should aim at initially moving all of the criticism throughout the page to a single section, then we can work toward cutting it down to a descent size that more adequately reflects the controversial Sathya Sai Baba. This, of course, would be a part of the broader goal of trimming down the entire page while leaving the relevant information. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono, I think that is a good start plan moving all the criticism under one section and later see what to keep and what to get rid off. When condensing we will go over more detailed discussions. Lets start with that and we can improvise along the way. Radiantenergy (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that you want to segregate claims of miracles from criticisms of these claims then I strongly disagree. This belongs together because it treats one subject i.e. miracles. Andries (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism in one section will give the article some respectability and make it fair. Some improvement suggestions. One improvement could be getting rid of the large paragraph about suicides. Its not rational to conclude that Sai Baba has caused people to commit suicide or has anything to do with someone's mental condition. 2)I think the article should follow the Shirdhi Sai Baba article. except with a small criticism and controversy section. . 3) The article says "In Sweden a Sai Baba school closed down". There are many many Sai Schools all over the world that never closed down. No school that I am aware has closed down since. The Sai Baba school in Zambia is called "The Miracle School" . Take a look at this article. http://www.times.co.zm/news/viewnews.cgi?category=8&id=1009222660. It starts off by saying, "The positive influence of Sathya Sai is unprecedented in the annals of education in Zambia. Sai Baba’s education ideals as embodied in his human values-based approach in education are an eye opener to educationists in Zambia." I think this is a very important article that shows a reality about Sathya Sai Education and should used as a main source for the Education section. It is a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards.4) The first two paragraphs should be beefed up. I can make suggestions for the introduction. Sbs108 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to have more detailed discussions related to that whole section about the Allegations. Every paragraph has to be discussed since most of it is filled with POV views. The Suicides are sourced to The Times - which is a reputed source. But at the same time i do agree that Sathya Sai Baba cannot be blanned for those suicides. This is a difficult one. We can tone down the POV views in this case and make it more neutral or we may even take this discussion to the reliable source notice board and ask for suggestions. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Sai Baba is in part guilty of the suicide of Michael Pender, as several sources have stated. That one should stay. The other ones are doubtful and I agree with removing them. Andries (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the old version that radiantenergy linked. The organization section is perfect and should just be reinstated. How was this deleted? It explains in good detail the humanitarian works like schools hospitals and water projects. It is a good section. Looking at it I don't feel it needs to be re-written.Sbs108 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Movement Article, 1993 Murders Article and any other sub Articles

All the sub articles about Sai Baba should be removed. Once the main article is up to standard presenting a fair and balanced view there is no need for tangent articles. I believe the Sai Baba Movement Article was started to counter the slanderous and bias main article which is now in the process of being restored to a respectable condition. The 1993 murders article is irrelevant and is already included in the main article. The movement article is also misleading as there is no Sai Baba "movement"Sbs108 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam" subarticle was nominated for Article for Deletion. But the deletion process failed as there was no consensus from other wikipedians. So it cannot be removed. So I suggest that we can get rid of the "Death in the Ashram" section from the main Sathya Sai Baba Article as it repeats the same contents from this sub-article. If OnoPearls agrees then we can remove this section and leave the link to the sub-article.

I don't think "Sathya Sai Movement" can be merged with the main Sathya Sai article. Its huge and the main article may become very large and unmanageable. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I was thinking to eliminate it, not merge it because there are the official Sai Organization sites which give all that information. It also gives the false impression that there is a "movement."Sbs108 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention to section blanking and addition of info sourced to the SS organization itself

Several paragraphs had been blanked from the article; the images revealing foul play in purported miracles deleted; and a lot of stuff self sourced to the SSB organization added. Please pay attention to the issue. If such attack on the page continues, admin attention ought to be requested. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you see the discussions about the removal of info before you revert weeks of work. Please bring your issues to the talk page before you try to remove all of the extra info that was added, as I personally went back and added info that you (aka white_adept) removed without cause. This page was in shambles, and I welcome you to come and work with the other editors to add relevant info, and remove the POV; However, if you refuse, and try to readd information that was removed after a consensus agreed on it, admin attention will have to be requested, if not another arbitration, to ensure that you do not have a CoI with this page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was the June 2nd version to which I attempted the revert( just 5 to 6 days old). It was done to save paragraphs of info and the video clips deleted, and also to keep out a huge amount of material which was sourced to an extremely controverisal primary source. These changes were done from June 3 onwards, in an onslaught of edits by IPs and newly registered editors. Please see my comment below as well. We need to strictly adhere to WP:RS, if we are to ensure the article's quality.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And I believe that the Sathya Sai organization is a perfectly reliable source when it is used as a reference for the Sathya Sai organization responding to criticism and allegations of mismanagement of funds, sexual abuse, etc. I personally find it ludicrous that you are trying to keep information that isnt critical of Sai Baba out of this article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 01:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think given the controversial nature of the article, big changes must thoroughly be discussed on the talk page. God or Devil, people have strong opinions about Sai Baba. They need to be toned down. One person can not dominate the article. It is a collaborative process. Changes MUST have reasonable explanations. The goal is to get the article to encyclopedia standard. The article is still far from it. I suggest people unfamiliar with what an encyclopedia article looks like, go and read a biography of a controversial figure in Encyclopedia Brittannica.I think users who can not bear to see one positive thing in the article or users who can't stand to see one negative thing in the article need to be prohibited from editing. It has already been discussed to keep criticism in its own section, as any encyclopedia article with not have slanderous unproven allegations peppering the article of a living person no less one who has not been found guilty of anything.Sbs108 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is as simple as paying attention to WP:RS

Onopearls, I had attempted to restore your June 2nd version ( just 6 days old) - the one before onslaught by these newly registered editors. Even the comments made to support the edits are so unencyclopaedic. Some of the recent edit comments after June 2nd include: "I know that the changes I made where right"[2], "I add \ed thta because I know what to do"[3], "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true"[4], "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"[5]- just to point out a few.

Clearly these are changes made by people who donot understand how wikipedia works. As a long term editor and being better informeed about wiki policies - I think you should make clear the pertinent wiki policies to these editors.

Well Dilip, had you bothered to check your info before bringing it to the talk page, you would already be aware that each and every one of those edits were reverted. So no, there was no "onslaught" by new editors, all the edits you are so bent on reverting were made by myself, Radiantenergy, and Sbs108. The editor you are trying to use as an excuse for your reverts has, as you should have already been aware (had you checked your facts before hand, of course), been banned indefinitely. So if I may speak bluntly, do not revert this page again until there has been a lengthy discussion. If you continue to disregard Wikipedia policies, such as WP:STATUSQUO (only undo good faith edits as a last resort), then I will call in an admin to mediate. I strongly suggest that you bring your concerns to the talk page before you undo anymore edits. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Those edits were immediately reverted, none of those edits are in the article. So there is no argument here on this point. The quality edits were approved by the moderator and consensus on the discussion page. For example the correct quote is "Goldberg states though rumors of chicanery and worse swirl around all these ventures, even Sai Baba's critics admit that he has eased some of the region's suffering. God or a fraud, no one doubts the good work done by the Sai organization," wrote the Illustrated Weekly of India.** NOT** "Goldberg notes that Sai Baba's charities have reportedly been plagued by "rumors of chicanery and worse." Her point is this quote was about the fact that even Sai's critics can not deny the good he's done. Your edit deliberately misleads people. There is absolutely no justification for your version of the quote.Sbs108 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The primary source on this is extremely controversial in nature. Its use must be kept to an absolute minimum to ensure the article's quality. And we certainly should not be building entire sections on self sourced material. Retorts by the organization has appeared in newspapers etc. and we certainly can use them. But please donot source several paragraphs to the ssb organization( in the present version, entire sections glorifying the controversial activities of the organization which they themselves label "charity", etc. - has been sourced to the ssb website) - that would make the article completely non-neutral, unreliable and just a mouth-piece for ssb organization.

Almost all the information about the charitable activites are from third party sources.I think its absurd to call free hospitals, free schools and a water project bringing water to over 700 villages "controversial" and the mentioning of them "glorifying."Sbs108 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In the June 2nd version ( the one after your edit) - there is much less of this self-praise from ssb organization. Also the images ( revealing foul-play in purported miracles) all remain intact. These were all deleted from the article without reason by newly registered editors and IPs. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy self published material may be used 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 primarily based on such sources.Since Sai Baba is being slandered in this article, the rebuttal is allowed to be there, especially since there is no charge and no case, no conviction and no proof of any wrong doing.The tiny amount of directly sourced material could hardly be called "self serving". Sbs108 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What are people doing to improve this article?

Many people seem to be good at labeling this article, removing and replacing things in this article, but the majority are not doing anything to improve this article. You either have people just coming on and using this as a vehicle to malign and slander Sai Baba who can't stand one positive word or you have devotees coming and just deleting sections. In some people's eyes removing everything positive about Sai Baba is improving the article. This is insanity. This is a biography of a living person and needs to follow the wikipedia rules on BLP. Although there is criticism and it should definitely be present, it can not overwhelm the article. In fact it needs to be reduced considerably. The reasons are that most if not all criticism contains statement of opinions rather than actual facts, even though well sourced. According to BLP Article, BLP must be written conservatively. It also states that

"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. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

I am inviting critics of Sai Baba and fans of Sai Baba and people who are neutral to work together to bring this article up. Each side needs to make some consessions. Clearly the article still has a negative tone. So I am asking the critics to help tighten up the Criticism and Controversy section from a long rant to a well written piece.Sbs108 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Massive BLP vios

This sort of language [6] can't be tolerated in a wikipedia article. Do not reinsert it. It's not neutral, is in fact prejuducial against a living human being, and there are in fact neutral ways to handle what reliable sources say. (The way this particular pioneer article is written it does not look reliable at all.) probably off to the blp-notice board on this. Bali ultimate (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Discussion from user talk page

I am going to be adding sourced positive but non-bias content to article such as teachings and general facts about Sai Baba and more of His own words. Also sourced material from people who spent over 30 years with him. If people like Arnold Schulman and Tal Brooke are used who only spent a short time with him and then wrote negative acounts, then people like Sam Sandweiss and others who have spent over 30 years with Sai Baba should also be used.What is the proper procedure? I want to do this the right way in order to get this article to a respectable standard

My first task is to improve the teachings section as well as add content about Sai Baba's humanitarian works such as free hospitals, schools and his massive water project.

Two important points

1) It is my firm belief that criticism MUST be in its own section, and not included within the other parts of the article. In other words one section could say MATERIALIZATIONS AND MIRACLES, then the people who refute these could have a section in the criticism part of the article that says CLAIMS OF MATERIALIZATIONS AND MIRACLES. The amount of sourced documented material on Sai Baba's miracles is massive compared to the claims of fakery.. We are talking about miracles performed on a daily basis for over 70 years.

2) The first two paragraphs of this article MUST be re-written. It reads like a trailer to a bad movie.I don't believe the accusations should be in this first paragraph because they are just that ....accusations, and if they have to be there...there must be a clear rebuttal in the same paragraph to effect that Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime and never been convicted of any wrong doing. Also, The Consular page no longer carries the warning that was attributed to Sai Baba. This is vital to the intergrity of the article.Sbs108 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the segregation of claims of miracles and criticisms of these claims. They belong together because they treat one subject: miracles. Andries (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Its true that the warning about travelling to Andhra Pradesh and all indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba in the Consular Sheet has been removed. .I even checked the latest 2009 Consular Sheet released by the US Department of State in February 2009 and I don't see any warning referring to either Andhra Pradesh or indirect reference to Sathya Sai Baba under the crime section. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1139.html#crime. I have also started a discussion about this in the reliable source notice board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question:Can_an_articles_be_updated_as_per_the_new_2009_Consular_Travel_Warning_For_India.3F. So far the verdict has been to exclude this information as it is a BLP concern. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reports of Sexual Abuse Section: Even this section heading sounds biased and advocating a POV. I am thinking about more neutral heading. For instance even the 2006 consular sheet mentioned the word "Unconfirmed" when referring to the allegations on Sathya Sai Baba. The BBC documentary made those allegation reports based on Alaya Rahm case. Later when Alaya Rahm filed a case of allegations on Sathya Sai Baba in the supreme Court of California - Alaya Rahm was defeated. Sathya Sai Baba was proved innocent in this case. So I think atleast the heading should be more appropriate and neutral like "Unconfirmed Allegations". Please let me know what do you think. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the above change in your Sandbox. Also I want to address another issue. There are number of negative videos in this article which were added during White_Adepts edits.

• These videos under the Claims of materialization and other miracles section are clearly biased. I watched this video a couple of times it is not very clear but the message seems to be clearly advocating POV views saying he is faking the "materialization" of a necklace. [[Image:BabaNecklacefake.ogv|200px|thumb|A video broadcast on Indian state controlled television in which Sai Baba is seen apparently faking the "materialization" of a necklace.
• The same came be said about the following video - its not very clear from the video but the comment is very biased and advocating POV saying that Sathya Sai Baba is hiding the compressed ash pill between his fingers.[[Image:SaiBabaAshCreationExposed.ogv|200px|thumb|Denmark National Television documentary analyzing one of the most common purported "miracles" of Sai Baba.
• There are also number of positive videos on Sathya Sai Baba materialising a number of different objects telecasted by some prime TV channels in India. Also number of his followers have claimed to have seen him materialise rings, chains etc. To balance the negativity we can either remove some of these negative videos or we can add some positive videos. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the video showing Sai Baba apparently manifesting vibhuti can not be "proof" of fakery. It is unrealistic that Sai Baba has been carrying around pills, necklaces, watches and other objects for over 70 years in order to pretend to materialize them. If this video is allowed than other video's showing the untold amount of materializations should also be there. For example there is a video of Sai Baba doing the "abhishekam" where he has his hand in a pot upside down. Vibhuti (ash) pours out in Large quantities for at least 5 minutes.This video only shows about a minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeaJpD8Jwg. I really don't think any videos should be in this article. If people want to investigate they can go to You Tube themselves. You find what you are looking for.Sbs108 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ono- I will take your suggestion and make changes in the sandbox first. Again I am learning the ropes on Wikipedia proceedure.I will help make the article more positive in nature. I am not trying to promote Sai Baba through this article, but I feel it should accurately portray his life, teachings and the tremendous good he has done. Criticism and opposing views are welcome and I don't have a problem with that. We should stick to factual information. Sbs108 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that one of the few good edits that White_adept/Dilip made was adding those videos. I do not think that they should be removed. Andries (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with radiantenergy and Sbs108 on the videos. They really are, if nothing else, pushing POV in the section. The fact that the miracles are believed to be staged is more than adequately covered in the text, so the videos are, in my opinion, overkill. Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Death in the Ashram Section: There is a sub article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam" which covers this incident in great detail. This link in both under the Criticism and Controversy section and as well in the further reading section. I am not sure if we need a separate section for this. Pretty much this section repeats again from the subarticle. I suggest that may be we can get rid of this section and leave the sub-article link there. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In the allegation section there is a big paragraph about suicides sourced to the article in The Times. One case is about a HIV patient Pender who wanted cure by Sathya Sai Baba and later commited suicide in homeless hostel in North London. Its not clear from the article what really happened. This section is full of POV views analyzing why he commited suicide based on another person Mr Ord's evidence on the internet. Its pretty much like some one said something based on what she heard from some one whose claim in the internet accuses Sai Baba as the reason for Pander's suicide. I have re-written this in more neutral tone in the Sandbox. Also I have mentioned two other case mentioned in The Times where one of the person had psychological problems and wanted cure for that. Please see if you are ok with this change. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Pender committed suicide, in part, as stated in the Times article, because he was sexually abused by Sai Baba, according his close friend Keith Ord. This should be stated in the article. Second hand, yes, but Pender could not speak anymore for himself. Keith Ord stated in another article that he tried to verify what happened to Pender, went to the ashram and unfortunately got sexually abused too by Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. The article does not state Pender directly said that. Pender did not die in Baba's ashram either he commited suicide in London. The article does not say when Pender travelled to India. It only says that Kathleen Ord who says she is friend of Pender said her son Keith Ord reported about this. The whole section following that statement is on the basis of "Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet, states:" and goes on. It does not make any sense to directly accuse Sathya Sai Baba of sexual allegations based on a posting in internet by Ord?.
• There is a basic difference between Wikipedia and other newspapers. Wikipedia is not a tabloid nor a newspaper nor a magazine it is an encyclopedia and greatly emphasis on encyclopedic neutral tone especially when writing Biography of a Living Person. In this case I think we should mention about this suicide incident as it is sourced to The Times. But Sathya Sai Baba cannot be accused directly of sexual abuse because it not clear from the article what really happened. We cannot write accusations based on vague details like somebody told me that somebody said and wrote on the internet so this is what happened. Anybody could have posted on the internet as Keith Ord. When did internet postings become a reliable source for accusing some one of abuse in wikipedia articles? Radiantenergy (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, you are wrong here is what the article stated

"Kathleen Ord, who first told him of Sai Baba's teachings, has since destroyed her books and videos on the holy man. She said: "I blame myself in many ways because, if I hadn't introduced them, Mitch would probably be alive now. That's what he went to India for, thinking he'd find a cure.

"He tried to commit suicide in the ashram. He had overdosed on drugs more than once. He had some strange, very powerful experiences there. There was something sexual that was frightening."

Her son, Keith, has given a detailed account of what Mr Pender said in his last weeks about meeting Sai Baba. The guru flattered the British student by describing him as "the reincarnation of St Michael". Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet, states: "He told me that the very first private interview that he had with SB was a sexual encounter.Her son, Keith, has given a detailed account of what Mr Pender said in his last weeks about meeting Sai Baba. The guru flattered the British student by describing him as "the reincarnation of St Michael". Mr Ord's evidence, posted on the Internet,states: "He told me that the very first private interview that he had with SB"

Andries (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all mentioned in the Times and several other sources. When did this become and unreliable source for Wikipedia? Andries (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it may not be very clear to you what happened but if you read it in combination with published Dutch sources, like University press article the Sai Paradox http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/artikelen/paradox.html and (translated into English) http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/0010spiegelbeeld.htm then it is very clear. Andries (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another published Dutch source that mentions Keith Ord's experienced that could be used for the article. http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/artikelen/wonderdoener.html Andries (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If the Times considers evidence then who are you to doubt that? I consider it evidence too, because Keith Ord's story has been verified several times. The Times is not tabloid journalism. Let us follow what reputable sources have stated. Andries (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Andries, you yourself admitted its not clear. Why are you pushing to add such an abuse claim on Sathya Sai Baba when his involvement is not clear. You very well know that we cannot use attack website such as saiguru.net nor ex-baba as reference to this article.
• I did some more research on Keith Ord and his allegations on Sai Baba and found some reference in some attack websites. Keith Ord has made other senseless claims saying Sathya Sai Baba changed from male to female.
• I don't think we should go out of way adding ridiculous claims and information from attack websites to support such claims. I still stand with my earlier statement. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All the information that I posted is listed in published paper printed sources, not only in attack websites. The websites www.saiguru,net and www.exbaba.com contain both information that are reliable sources and unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia sources. I am sorry to say that the bizarre claim that SSB can change instananeously into a woman can be sourced to a university press magazine and Keith Ord is not the only one with this testimony. Your opinion about a statement in a reliable source does not change the reliability of the source. Andries (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the article regarding Keith Ord and Michael Pender is sourced to attack websites. All is sourced to the Times. I only used some originally Dutch paper-published articles that are also copied on attack websites to support my argument that the story in the Times should be included. Andries (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that commits suicide has serious emotional and mental problems that extend way beyond one particular incident. It is ludacris to assume one person caused the suicide of another. We can not assume someone was abused based on heresay when there is just no evidence of anywrong doing by Sai Baba.To somehow have the article insinuate that Sai Baba had anything to do with suicides of mentally unstable people is just tabloid journalism. THIS is an Encyclopedia. I think people should look at a real encyclopedia to get a sense of how this article should flow and be structured.Sbs108 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, if you do not understand the article in the Times then take the time to read other articles about the Pender/Ord affair. E.g this paper published article. http://www.saiguru.net/english/media/0010spiegelbeeld.htm Andries (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Andries, Again you are repeatedly giving the reference from attack websites and their interpretation of what happened. Here's a Pro website with a different version of Keith Ord story . I wanted you to take a look at this too. http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Ord/
• The point is we cannot write an article based on either attack website or pro-website. From the Times article is not very clear what really happened other than the claims from Keith Ord in an internet posting. So I think we can mention this incident from The Times but Sathya Sai Baba cannot be accused as his role is not clear.
• When writing the criticism - Wikipedia rule states "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". If we still don't agree we can take it to WP:RS noticeboard. I don't have issue with that. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, I do not. The article that I referred is sourced to a paper published article that was published in the magazine Spiegelbeeld. This article is copied on www.saiguru.net
• Going to the WP:RS to ask whether The Times is a reputable source seems like a waste of time. Again, nothing is sourced to spiritual seekers' consumer protection websites, like saiguru.net or www.exbaba.com Andries (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Andries, The question is not about whether to include this incident or not. I do agree that we can include this incident sourced to the The Times. But from The Times Sathya Sai Baba involvement in the abuse and suicide is not clear. I am sure the WP:RS noticeboard will be able to help out in this case. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Every word from this incident is now sourced to the Times i.e. a reliable source. If you want to discuss this at WP:RS then go ahead, though, to me this seems like a waste of time because the consensus is that the Times is a reliable source. Andries (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Moving in Right direction-Issues with the article (Allegations and Miracles sections)

I think the article is moving in the right direction with the additional of reasonable editors both pro and con. As much as people would like the other side to go away, its not going to happen, so a compromise must take place. The biggest problem right now is the ridiculously bloated "allegations"section. It can be condensed and still convey the point in a concise encyclopedic manner. The materializations and miracles section is severely slanted to "fakery." This needs to be balanced as there are well sourced documented accounts of miracles, healings and manifestations that were in the article before and were blanked out. There is no reason why these were taken out. These should be reinstated to balance that section.Since this is the BLP criticism needs to be kept at a minimum do to no proof of any wrong doing by Sai Baba. This article is not and can not be proof of wrong doing nor a vehicle for his "conviction." Sbs108 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 - [7], [8], [9]. 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)

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)

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)

Comparing the two versions

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

And here is the other version : http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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/enwiki/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[11] 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)