Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Sathya

What does this mean in the context of His Name? As far as I have read, there is no explanantion within the article. Maybe that this points to religious conviction? [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.218.119 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sathya is a popular hindu first name, meaning truth. Andries (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, thanks! now I remember also Satyagraha. Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.132 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

oh no.

• Women should strive to realize stri-dharma , the inherent virtues of womanhood.

Music

• [2]

All those people deleting this and that without any discriminating wisdom, it's a drag.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.132 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Radio

• [3]
• for example

28th December 2008

In the pursuit of the good and godly life, one may encounter many difficulties and disturbances. Many doubts and questions crop up. It is only when these difficulties are faced squarely and the troubles are borne with patience and fortitude that we can understand the true nature of Reality. You should not allow yourselves to be overwhelmed in any way by difficulties and sorrows, doubts and disappointments. You must have faith. Have confidence in yourself and strive to understand well the nature of God's love. To secure that love is the sacred goal of human life. The transforming power of Love is boundless.

- BABA

Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.44 (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba's life and health as predicted by him

Babb wrote that SSB has predicted that he will die as young man. I think this should be added.

Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals

1) Finding of Facts :

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

2) Rulings on NPOV and sources:

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

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

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

3) Proposals: .

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

• Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 1991 ISBN 0813379695
• The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds, 1988.
• McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
• White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, 1972, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Aug., 1972), pp. 863-878
• Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 116-124
• Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press (1987), ISBN 0520061632
• Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, 2003, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
• Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1982), pp. 123-158
• Sangha, Dave & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 2005, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
• Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1 / January 1, 2000
• Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, 2004, Taylor and Francis
• Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 2003, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
• Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
• Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang, 1 February 1984. available online in English
• Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse (2005), ISBN 978-1420841619
• Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
• Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba) (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
• Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review, June 22, 2000 (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)).

Second arbitration rulings on using Robert Priddy as a source

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

6.1.1) Robert Priddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a former Sai Baba devotee who wrote a favorable book, Source of the Dream - My Way to Sathya Sai Baba (1997). He later left the movement and wrote an unfavorable book, The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma (2004). The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma is only held by one large library world wide according to Worldcat; it is published in India and is not available for sale on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk. Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.

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

RadiantEnergy 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake introduced by recent edits: documentary is Danish, not Dutch

fragment from Danish (not Dutch) documentary Seduced by Sai Baba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SaiBabaAshCreationExposed.ogv Please correct this mistake. Andries (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Advaita Vedanta introduces serious omission

I admit that I can do not have reputable third party secondary sources available right now but Advaita Vedanta is clearly an important aspect of SSB's teachings. This is probably one of the few things (ex-)devotees agree about. removal of Advaita Vedanta] Andries (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[[:File:BBC-Expose-saibabaClaim.ogv|thumb|A clip from BBC Documentary "The Secret Swami" in which the guru is recorded telling his devotees:"Out of the stomach emerged siva lingas of the weight of Three Tons. That is the reason why some strain on the [his] face and body."|]]

What this trickster talks about is always filtered crap : senseless hotch-potch - nothing short of that. And his devotees blinded by what they think are supernormal powers ( which according to Indian traditions, demons,spirit possessed people, evil-entities, shamans, witches etc. all can have) try to put his absurdities into some paradigm. Is he teaching Christianity just because he talks about "service". Thats just his wretched sheep-cloak. Advaita Vedanta never talks about "devotion to baba( ritual worship)" or "bhajans( singing out loud ritual songs, all praising baba, accompanied by rythmic clapping of hands)" or "arti". On the other hand such stuff are the extreme anti-pole of what advaita vedanta is all about. Do you think a person going around fooling people with cheap tricks is teaching advaita vedanta? Do you even know what advaita vedanta is? Where does he teach Pratyakṣa, Anumāna or Upamāna. Where does he talk about Vivartavada? A billion miles from advitya vedanta is what this criminal talks about. Devotees sit and sing out aloud like madmen his praises - is it advaita vedanta?? Is making trinkets through sleight of hand advaita vedanta? Is lying and cheating people advaita vedanta? He pulls out crap from everywhere and blabbers extreme non-sense. Is claiming that his ill-health is because he suddenly excreted 3000 kilograms of metal siva lingas( see video on right) advaita vedanta? To confuse absurdities spoken by this crap-brained trickster with authentic Indian traditions is horribly insulting the authentic traditions of Indians and the great spiritual scientists who founded them.

White adept (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think SSB teaches Advaita Vedanta. Just read ten of his discourses and you will find it in at least five. Babb thinks that SSB teaches eclectic Hinduism (Redemptive Encounters), Babb also wrote (p. 172) about mediation practices advocated by SSB that "The light is the Lord, and by experiencing oneself as light, one realizes the identity with the God, who all along has been within. The final goal therefore, is merger with God, who is, in fact, Baba.". This seems to me, a statement, typical for Advaita Vedanta.Andries (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference from a 3rd party reputable source

from Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press. (1988) Appendix 2 The Teachings of Sathya Sai Baba, page 345

"Baba's teachings is to be understood in the context of Hindu-theologies of identity or non-difference, Advaita Vedanta. [..]For criticism of Bab 's advaitic views, see Mangalwadi 1977: 153, 163"

Andries (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol .. God .. who is mr baba ! How darn ridiculous can you get?? Cant you see he is faking it all? Despite all the video evidence?? Do you not see that what you label so cheats people through sleight of hand moves, does genital oiling in "private interviews" as many European devotees themselves admit( dismissing it as a ritual! ). And goes around claiming that suddenly a few tons weight of metal balls emerged out of his stomach?( click play on the BBC video on right) And spends his time giving "private interviews"??

Could you show me the same from authentic Advaita Vedanta .. that god is mr "baba"? Lol .. sorry I cant help laughing. Its obvious you have a clear agenda of white-washing a criminal here! Why do you fail to address that many sources which say his teachings are superficial and meaningless? What about the several sources from BBC, US Gov, European Govs etc. who state that all evidence indicates he is a pedophile, homosexual predator? What about rationalists who state he is likely directly involved in murders? What about professor of philosophy Robert Priddy's statements? What about Basava Premanada's statements? The "baba" you promote here appropriates stuff, adds his name at the end of everything, his henchmen make it sound flowery and you have the crap you post above.

Since when did Advaita Vedanta involve cheating with tricks?? Isn't that the very opposite of the basic tenet of adhering to truth in word and action? If Vedanta is someone's philosophy you might expect the person to the very least practice it. *Sigh* How can you keep a good conscience and proselytize and cover-up for some one like this?

Just for argument's sake. Think this way: You yourself could pull out a couple of flowery sound stuff from scriptures , add your name at the end of it and claim you are teaching Vedanta. And of course side-by-side cheat people. Have 4 people killed in your own bed room. Do genital oiling. And then call those who oppose/criticze you evil, etc. And have your teachings labeled "Advaita Vedanta".

Or say pull our quotes from Bible, add in your own name here and there, then say you are teaching Christianity. And together with that perform sleight-of-hand "miracles", cheat people, engage in paedophilic acts and destroy lives and then require that your "teaching" be called "Christian". How patently absurd, criminal, wretched and outrageous would genuine Christians find it?? Advaita Vedantis are no different. So please..

So - a request. Don't insult others' and your own intelligence by posting these wretched - engineered-to-deceive - flowery-sounding quotes here - e. Do it elsewhere if you must - But this is absolutely not the place for you to proselytize a criminal.

White adept (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, White adept, Wikipdia works with wikipedia:reliable sources and your highly subjective opinions and generalizations about the incompatibility of trickery and teaching advaita vedanta at the same time are irrelevant for this article. I have provided a reliable third party source and there are dozens of primary sources (SSB's discourses) that support inclusion of advaita vedanta. Andries (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And why are you consciously attempting to mislead other editors with these claims? Who told you ex-devotees say that?? This is what ex-devotees, including many who held top-most positions in the organization, say. Am pretty darn sure it is not that you are not aware. And if it were just ignorance - kindly make sure that you read it. White adept (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What if Sai Baba is really an Avatar?

Let's assume that one of the following is true:
- Sai Baba is really a Purna Avatar (full encarnation of God, as devotees believe)
- Sai Baba is not a real guru (guru = one who removes ignorance)

In the way the article is at the moment, It sounds to me like a panflet trying to convince that "He is not a guru!", the fruit of a strong effort spent in this purpose.
Considering that the second option is true, it is not so bad.

But, consider for a moment that the first option is true.
In this case, the article is a strong demonstration of ignorance, and is also a serious offense, not to mention the great amount of lies, even that they are all "references"...

As no one can be sure if the first or the second option is true, if Wikipedia claims to be "encyclopedic", not biased, etc., the article, as it is, is absolutely inapropriated. In fact, it is an insult for all the thousands of believers around the world. And, in the case of the santity of Sai Baba being true, it is dangerously misleading.

In my opinion, the article must be written in a way that satisfies both the two options - perhaps, it could be divided in two versions:
Version 1: "in case of He being Krishna reincarnate" (the Almighty God in human form) - maybe the thousands or millions of devotees are not all wrong! So, let´s assume this and write an article that corresponds to this sacred Majesty.
Version 2: "in case of he is just fooling everyone" (a criminal that builds hospitals for disguise) - maybe the anti-devotees are right. So, let's warn everybody and write an article that supports this vision.

And put them together, but without mixing.
This "fake mix" in name of "neutrality" is not working. That's why this suggetion must be considered. The current article does not fit for the first option (he is truly an Avatar), and only fits the second. How can this be correct?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.75.237 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A 'true devotee' will a find a way to remove critical tags from Sathya Sai Baba movement?

I was completely taken aback to say the least to see a statement of this sort on wiki from a user to Andries . Please see here[4]:

“ If you are a true devotee you will find a way to remove the tag ; ) ” — Statement to User:Andries on his talk

The context of this statement, if not already clear to you, is about getting a critical tag removed from an article white-washing this cult. And as a "true-devotee" of the cult, the job falls upon User:Andries. *sigh* Do you not, the very least, realize this is an encyclopaedia?!!

Reading through his comments here as well as on his talk I see the person function in an extremely deceptive manner taking extra-care not to reveal his status as a devotee of this cult - deceptive statements and deceptive actions is what I see constituting the central pillar of the user's modality of functioning on this and related articles - see, for instance, how deceptively he tries to forms a cabal and attempts to get attention from a fellow-devotee ( See recent instance here:[5])( Engaging in WP:CANVAS in a manner that will makes it hard-to-detect ) to canvass support for his cause ... to put mildly - rather amusing.

( The deceptiveness of this behavior goes far beyond what an editor who has little exposure to the cult will even remotely suspect. The para pointed out as deleted - while on the surface is from a source critical of the cult, was cunningly distorted and mis-represented to come across as supportive of the cult and inculpatory of the critics. Further, under the umbrella of questioning an edit - and it seems quite clear to me - Andries was trying to get Johnson22 into the discussion - to WP:CANVASS his support. Am impressed. Talk about deceptiveness; cult-style !! )

White adept (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Devotees strengthes Devotees

I wish to say "thank you" for all anti-devotees because you are able to bring our reflection to very deep levels... without such strong opposition, maybe our devotion would be weaker. You act as a Swami's instrument to prove, challenge our faith and beliefs. God! It is so good! I am very happy with this.

I was just called "fool"... and "Anon IP" (sorry for don't taking the time to register...)... and received a lot of links and information trying to convince me... that I am a fool.

So, I decided to answer here, as a way to share with fellow devotees, the reflections that reading and seeing the videos brought to me... everybody knows that, for us, Sai Baba is God (and we know, of course, it sounds crazy, or fool)

And some of us have read a lot of Swami's messages and discourses - I have not the source reference here, but I remember reading Sai Baba's comments about the construction of a better road to reach Puttaparthi (where he lives)... with his sense of humour, he regreted it as a way to give easier access to non-devotees... while until that moment only real devotees would accept the challenge of reaching that difficult-to-reach place...

Now that the roads are good, and there are taxis in the international airport ready to take people to the ashram, and the ashram accomodations are comfortable, in other words, the access is easy, so Sai Baba is difficulting the access through other ways, so only REAL devotees can "reach" him.

How is He doing it? Wow! He is brilliant! For people focused in all that magician stuff (instead of in what really matters), he allows and enact videos where he seems to be faking: ash pills, saliva pretending to be a hidden golden egg, etc. Also, a lot of false rumours. And, finally, using a wheel-chair!

If he doesn't do all this, and, by he contrary, hires and buy merchandise (BTW, how does he spent money? doing propaganda? no! estimulating the chanting of the Vedas, building hospitals, educational institutions, water purification projects, etc.)... so, as I was saying, with his "scenes of false miracles", using wheel chair, and other stuff, he makes everyone that is about to call him/herself a devotee to face a very hard "decision" - one really "cannot have doubts", I mean: with all this "evidence" against him, one must be really a "fool" to believe - or, somehow, have a strong devotion, that does not break even with all this movement against him.

In this way, I thank everyone of you as Swami's instruments to bring fortitude and "courage" to our faith - you let us with no choice: or you believe on him, or you don't - because if you do not believe, all the stuff you publish avoid one to be in doubt - he/she must assume a position; in this way, your benefit for the movement is immense - you do not allow anyone to be in the middle; the strength of your attack is such that you must ACCEPT or DENY it - no other choice.

Believing that Sai Baba is God and that He is inside each one of us, I want to thank you again for having the above mentioned flux of delicious reflections, being even more amazed on how God is omnipresent and uses everything, even the "bad", in a good way.

I look forward for your answers to my words, and anticipatedly having fun on imagining them!

Yours,

"Anon IP" 189.15.110.25 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friend.. People like this are the ones who destroy people's faith through cheating. Authentic traditions and authentic teachings all teach working on one's own heart, looking inwards, walking the path on one's own, comprehension, understanding through reason etc. Vivekananda once said "That which needs to be worshiped is not God." Vivekananda highly praised and was always in awe of the "scorching fire of reason" employed by Sankaracharya in in his spiritual studies. Gautama Buddha taught: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Remember also that The Christ repeatedly warned us of the "wolves in sheep's clothing."

I know how it would feel like - getting to realize deceit was at the center of all that you thought were "miracles". And its sad. But as humans we need to wake up, learn from our mistakes, explore afresh, and find the Dao.

Just calmly think about it: you now would like to believe he is "divinely faking" his miracles. Why would he need an assistant to "divinely fake" his miracles? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BabaNecklacefake.ogv And this assistant( the person holding the trophy for him to take the necklace) was one of the 6 people who turned up brutally murdered in the 1993 incident in the godman's own bedroom. Even among the students of the sai-school, what happenned is an open secret. CID, CBI, police FIR, newspapers like Indian Express, The Hindu all noted that there was a 14 year old boy in raju's bedroom at that time - think, why would he be there at 1.a.m.? Please take time to read the "The Findings" in its entirety - it was written by two highly-educated westerners who were once blind devotees like you - they went through the same process that you are going through now - of refusing to analyze, of refusing to look, of denial, of searching for excuses.

White adept (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, White adept.

Of course, if I was not based in my own experiences, hardly I would sustain my mentioned beliefs, my faith. I have a lot of first hand experiences to share, and if you wish I can tell them with pleasure, just point me where to do it properly. I have heard lots, lots, lots of first hand experiences, because we, as devotees, like to tell them and listen to them - we enjoy it, and you know this is a characteristic of a devotee.

Yes, I have read the whole forty-one pages of the Findings. Although very unpleasant, yes, I have done it. I thank you for the opportunity of reading this material. I found that "The Findings" is the hidden card on the sleeve for the anti-Baba movement, and, fortunately, I have not found in there much things that I have not yet read in anti-Baba websites before.

Do I need to tell our point of view? It is very simple: the accusations are not true; they are invented stories, based upon "evidences" - the fact that he takes persons to interview room, the failed Baba's murder attempt, the darshan videos that were filmed and published by his own staff, etc. The Findings sounds to me as a distorted view upon what happens there, carefully picking some points and inventing stories upon them, while ignoring all the many and strong positive evidences.

And I'd like to share another simple reflection, for consideration of Wikipedia staff, because we are dealing with a living person biography, and a person that millions consider as a saint, and to which they offer his/her own prayers to!

May I ask your mother's name? Imagine an article in Wikipedia about her.

Now, imagine an old neighbour that, in a day that your mother was stressed, felt insulted by a couple of her words, and thus developed anger against her. Now, imagine that this person make this anger public by publishing an article in a magazine. And, then, a friend of this person keeps editing your mother's wikipedia article insisting in putting this negative point-of-view, wanting to portray your mother as an angry woman. If you, as her own son, tries to edit the article, removing it, because you know she did lots of good things, and that day she was nervous because of personal difficulties... well, first, you have no "sources" to point; second, you are biased! - you are her son... third, well, who else than you, her son, will worry about cleaning her public name? You have no choice... But I was supposing that she really had an angry moment... Now, imagine that a lot of untrue stories are published in the article (well, YOU know they are untrue, but who cares...) answer me: how would YOU feel seeing your own mother's wikipedia article full of horrible stories carefully built against her? Do I need to say more?

I really appreciate your attention.

Thanks.

189.15.116.209 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Friend, its sincere concern alone that made me urge you to think deeper. Please think: If the BBC, Times, CBC and all think this person is a dangerous pedophile - please think, there must be some reason my friend. Please don't be carried away by what you think are supernatural abilities, surface pretensive sweetness etc - for Scriptures tell us Demented Demons, Evil Shamans all can have some supernatural abilities - also that they can fool innocent people by faking sweetness and with talk that sounds good on the surface. Please think - countless innocent, trusting people like Rahm family have had their faith shattered and taken advantage of in the most disturbing manner by this person. The guardian reporter describes the Rahm family as what Americans would call "Straight Arrows". See interview with the Rahm family here: Google Video Link

And also with all due respect to your beliefs - if you want to carry this discussion any further - I dont think we should do it here - this is an encyclopedia. As editors here we are expected to be discussing the article - not our beliefs. So please use my talk page for the purpose - if there something you'd like to discuss with me. Secondly, the allegations are covered by The BBC, The CBC, The Guardian, Denmark National TV, CNN and countless high-quality sources. Very recently there was coverage on a prominent US TV network. How are u gonna clean that up? If someone wants to cover-up for this person then he will have to start by covering up all these sources - wikipedia functions on what reliable sources say, and what is central to a person's notability. Such reputation in international media is something this person earned through his evil deeds - little to do with anyone's personal perspective.

Also think if the reports are true then if you cover-up for him -aren't you knowingly covering up for a murderer - allowing more misdeeds - letting more innocent young children become victims? The victims are likely to be scarred for the rest of their lives -please remember that. White adept (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

About Sathya Sai Baba article improvement

As the article currently focus in one specific Point-Of-View - it is clearly not neutral - and offend basic human dignity, (in other words, it is strongly biased), thus, it can not be considered itself a reliable source, but merely an anti-Baba panflet.

This is bad for Wikipedia.

I'd like to have the time to build a well-done, policies-following, verifiable and reliable sources based article, respecting both points-of-view, and not a single one.

As I myself cannot spent the time for this task, I merely let this words here as a suggestion, after having shared a few arguments in my previous messages.

When one will write an article entitled "Sathya Sai Baba", one probably will have is own POV (he is God; he is anti-Christ; he is whatever), and even if it has not, it must start from somewhere: "SB is a saint, some do not believe"... "SB is a criminal, some think he is saint..."

Since is almost impossible writing from a neutral point of view, when there are such strong contradictory beliefs from both sides, I have already offered another suggestion for the article: version 1 and version 2 (please see above, in "What if Sai Baba is an Avatar?")

I have no replies for the article improvement suggestion (instead, I was hardly offended by a nervous reply, as you can see above)

If one does not think the current article is biased, it is because it has a specific POV, which is: "he is not saint, or God"... If one has a neutral POV, after reading the article, he will say: "he is a charlatan"... If one has a devotee POV, he will feel disturbed, at least.

So: I ask you, to start - do you agree that the article is biased or not?

If the answer is "no, it is not biased" - so, I strongly disagree, and say: "yes, it is very biased" - and we should ask someone else here at the Wikipedia staff/administration/mediation/arbitration (I am no Wikipedia expert) their opinions, their answers to this simple question: "The current article is neutral?"

My answer is: "no, it is not"

And I want the article to be improved, so we all can say: "yes, finally, it is neutral; finally, it is not biased"

First, I think we must agree that it is actually, not neutral.

Please, I'd like to receive answers from readers / editors / administrators here: Is the current article neutral POV, not biased?

If everyone agrees that it is actually NPOV, not biased, I will not spend more of my time here and say "sorry, I don't think so, but I am a single minority voice here..."

If, as it seems obvious to me, some agree that it is not NPOV, than we have a starting point from where to work upon.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.116.209 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out - as I see it, the article has gone to great lengths to keep things neutral by touching only upon issues of central notability - as presented in International Media - by presenting an academic, well-sourced cross-section of issues central to raju's notability in International Media. If we look at investigative journalist reports from Indian journalists themselves what we see is even more shocking - from that perspective, this article only scratches the surface of the enormity of this cult.

For instance Thehelka , an investigative journalist-agency in India notes:

Sathya Sai Central Trust: grab as grab can, Tehelka:

"An interesting case was that of a former devotee from Vijayawada, who donated a building to the trust. She had written in her will that the building was to go to the Sai Baba after her death. She was 55 years when she wrote the will. The trust authorities waited for five years, and then wrote to her family asking it to hand over either the building or its revenue.

The problem was that the devotee was still alive. "When I tried to take the donation back from the trust, no court or magistrate was ready to hear the case or give me justice," said the donor. She is on her deathbed and she despises the Sai Baba and all he stands for."

Countless such reports, from honest journalists of high-reputation have come out - we cannot even hope to touch upon all these reports. And could you clarify what you intent to do with all this coverage? Shove it under the carpet?

Of course there are somethings that need to be chucked out to make the article neutral - like absurd, patently ludicrous claims like " a cobra was found in the bedclothes of the baby shortly after Sathya Sai Baba was born" ( *ahem* a cobra is usually more than 7 feet long ! ) sourced from self-published biographies written by devotees listening to raju's own claims. Raju's sister herself has completely denied the claim as other authors note. Now thats the kind of thing that fails WP:NPOV and WP:V and needs to be cleaned out.

White adept (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear "White adept", you have a Point-Of-View, and the article supports it. I have another Point-Of-View, and the article does not support it. That's it. Can you call it "neutral"?

You insist in "notability".

I insist that this article suffers from lack of Neutral Point of View, Basic Human Dignity and Information supression

This, I say being objective. From my personal devotee opinion, you know, the article is like a collection of fake histories, all made by people that does not like Sai Baba.

But, for the sake of being neutral, I agree that these opinions, different than mine, have the right to be represented and have its space in the article. I don't want to enforce anyone to believe that Sai Baba is God, as I believe.

But the article, as it is now, is an effort to enforce everyone to believe that Sai Baba is charlatan. And you, White adept, from your declarations, does not feel it is wrong, since you join the choir that says that he is, in fact, a charlatan. Please, correct, and forgive me if I am wrong.

Unfortunately, as at the moment no one else here but me is expressing his/her frustration with this lack of quality in the article due to lack of NPOV, no Basic Human Dignity and Information Supression, I feel I don't have support on changing the state of it soon.

I understood I have absolutely no support from White adept... I wonder if someone else supports my opinion here, and also I question myself how to bring this case (my opinion) to higher hierarchy in the Wikipedia, because it is very easy to identify the mentioned problems in the article (unless you are also an anti-Baba).

Thanks again for your attention and for the time spent reading these words.

189.15.66.17 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NEWS: SAI BABA EXPOSED

Please Urgently Watch This Video: http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

White adept (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And? Why to "urgently watch this video"? What it has to do with wikipedia? If you have some problems with Sai Baba, than do it on some other media or authorities. Wikipedia is encyclopedia.

Jonson22 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article is made to sound like a beatup/coverup for a criminal one is hard pressed, by the desire to make the article objective, and obliged( as an editor)to draw urgent attention to material that can help editors gain an objective, neutral perspective on the subject. Further, editors seeing this short 9 minute video can save dozens of hours of meaningless future discussions. Also want to point out that the above link has now been fixed.

White adept (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What crime? Was there any evidence or trial? No? So, how can you be so certain about crime? And you talk about objective and neutral perspective on the subject?

Video gives no evidence.

Devotee or anti-devotee - both are subjected by their own perspective. You look like anti-devotee covered with "neutral pespective". Jonson22 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The video presents a lot of evidence - including objective, beyond doubt exposal of criminal-deceit involved in his tricks. Let each person form his opinion(of whether he is a cheap trickster, a criminal or whatever) after seeing the video. This obviously is not a court of law. But, he and many of his "supporters", and cover-up men will have to face one very soon. What the video presents is just a tip of the iceberg. A formidable body of evidence has been collected by some investigative agencies - including the details of many of his cover-up men.

White adept (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The video gives no evidence. This in encyclopedia and no "enlightening magazin" to convince me that Sai Baba is BAD or GOOD. So what if he has followers or no, so what if they cover-up some things... Do it on some other media, no on article on Wikipedia. Be professional! Be objective. It's so obvious, that you hate Sai Baba. Don't be fanatical. We don't want war here to convince people to "see the truth". This is just article. Jonson22 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The following website exposes the critics smear campaingn: http://www.saisathyasai.com/ . A must read to know the other side of the story - User:Solarpower123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

reliable sources, soapboxing, and the arbitration committee

White adept and others, there has been extensive debate and mediation what constitutes a Wikipedia:reliable source. I do not think that Robbert Priddy and the Findings are considered reliable sources. I will post a link to the mediation about this if I can find it. I suggest you to read the talk page archives and check the history of the article, because I am too lazy to repeat those many discussions. Also I think that people will not appreciate soapboxing (voicing personal opinions unrelated to improving the article) here, though personally I do not care much. Please note that the arbcom has to right to ban users from editing this article without an extensive arbcom case, so be very with your edits (and to a lesser extent with your comments here). Andries (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Priddy is a retired University of Oslo, Professor of Philosphy and perhaps a leading expert in the field - based on his exposure and extensive writings - much more so than many of the other sources used in the article - including self-published "biographies" written by devotees etc.

The Findings - is very relevant because of its notability. As Michelle Goldberg points out[6]:

It all started with a document called "The Findings," published in late 2000 by long-term devotees David and Faye Bailey, whose marriage was arranged by Sai Baba. Part of the nearly 20,000-word piece is given over to evidence that Sai Baba fakes his materializations and doesn't magically heal the sick -- revelations that seem self-evident to nonbelievers but provoke fierce debate in devotee circles and blazing headlines in the Indian press.

According to wikipedia "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena." Here the The Findings is much more than that - it is what this international-controversy all started with. So, ofcourse what it states is relevant - its not something you can cover-up. Also it has signed statements from people who has held the top-most positions in the sai organization.

Then if we go by what you are saying Haraldsson, self-published sources claiming miracles etc, self-published biography, etc all should be completely expunged first - they absolutely are not even remotely as notable as this work. Strange that you dont have a problem with the "cobra under bedsheet source" but don't want this centrally relevant document to be mentioned. I think you are the one who really deserves to get banned from wikipedia for shamelessly promulgating such biased falsities here on talk - under the umbrella of wiki policies( and that too for quite a long period I see). How come you smoothly ignore and never raise a question about the poorest quality sources - self-published by "sai-devotees"?

As for soapboxing am as much against it as an editor could be - the above post was merely done in response to mis-information being spread by an anonymous IP.

White adept (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:BostonMA/Mediation for discussion of sources. Andries (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept, the question is whether the Findings is a reliable source. It is true and undisputed that the Findings is an important document, but that is a different matter. I had described the contents of the Findings with reliable sources i.e. Salon.com This has already been discussed and I am sorry to say that if you want to be a serious editor of this article then you have to read all the old discussions. Do not expect me to give a detailed rebuttal to everything you write on the talk page when this has already been done in the archives. Btw, I still hold the opinion that the Findings should be linked to, even if this may be formally a violation of WP:BLP: not linking to a document that is described by many reputable sources as an important document contradicts common sense. Andries (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Findings published by David and Faye Bailey is another unreliable source containing large amounts of opinions and personal experiences. It is an unverifiable original research as per Wikipedia standards. Please refer to Wikipedia:reliable source. The Findings cannot be used as a reliable source or reference to this article. Also please familiarise yourself with the discussion about reliable sources, proposals and resolutions which were passed by the first and second arbitration commitee. ::RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Factual mistakes: bhajans and godman

• 1. "bhajans( devotional songs that are sung out aloud in praise of minor Hindu deities or in praise of sai baba himself)."

Untrue, not just of minor deities and not necessarily Hindu. I can provide sources on request.

• 2. "controversially described by his followers as a godman[1][6]"

From Godman_(Hindu_ascetic) "A godman is a colloquial name for a particular type of charismatic Hindu ascetic who has a high-profile presence, is capable of attracting attention and support from Indian society, and makes claims of spiritual attainments." Followers do not see SSB as a godman in this sense of the word and this is not supported by the listed sources i.e. Edwards, Linda & Lochtefeld, James G. (2002). Outsiders see him as a godman in this meaning of the word.

Andries (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Please provide source. We'll correct.
• 2. "Ascetic" is not what this person is. So if that term/definition applies to this individual, either way, is highly contested, I presume. So could we correct it to "controversially described as a godman"?

White adept (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ad 2. SSB presents himself as ascetic and the listed sources do not write that this description of SSB is controversial. Andries (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC documentary obviously does! Perhaps we could add the DTV documentary also.

White adept (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They do not use the meaning for Godman_(Hindu_ascetic) that is linked to. Andries (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"A bhajan is a type of Hindu devotional song[with], often simple, lyrics." Raju's bhajans are always in praise of himself - I dont think you can contest that[7]. In fact all are folk-hindu bhajans appropriated by this cult with the word "sai" or "sai baba" stuffed in here and there.

White adept (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept here is the description of bhajans from Sathya Sai Baba movement with one additional reference (David Bowen 1988). It is an undeniable fact that the people who sing bhajans sometimes worship SSB personally (or as the personification of the godhead i.e. istha deva).

Globally, local Sathya Sai Baba groups assemble to sing bhajans (devotional songs). Baba says that concentration on the name of God with the help of bhajans will easily lead to concentration on God and to higher devotion. Bhajans are sung at nearly every meeting. Bhajans are simple verses. One line is sung by a lead singer and is then repeated by the rest of the group. In those bhajans the name of traditional Hindu deities have sometimes been replaced by the names of Sathya Sai Baba.

Andries (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept, regarding the statement in the article that bhajans praise minor Hindu deities. This is unsourced and partially contradicted by the reputable secondary source. I admit that most bhajans praise Hindu deities (or SSB), but they are generally not minor and not necessarily Hindu.

"Devotees sometimes find themselves inspired to write their own songs, and the inclusion of these or devotional songs from non-Hindu traditions may be encouraged at Sai centres. The very act of singing bhajans thus combines the rigour of physical discipline, cleanliness, humility and chastity with the stimulation of highly charged emotional experience and sense of togetherness." from Kent, Alexandra (2001). Divinity and Diversity: A Hindu Revitalization Movement in Malaysia. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. pp. 49. ISBN 8791114403.

Andries (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, controversially described as a godman is clear enough - isnt it. We neednt draw conclusions as to if it is outsiders or devtoees who do that.

White adept (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i am afrid the whole page about sai baba has been over run by hate mongers(possibly evengalists)...some body need to do some thing about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nopes. It's just that raju is losing more and more of his henchmen and people are not so active in covering up his crimes anymore. If anyone/anything has over run it - it is the perspective/analysis from scholars, from The BBC, The CBC, The Times, The Guardian etc.

I understand from the research I did to edit this article; that this cult - whenever an allegation on raju comes to light - blames it immediately on "white devils", "christian evangelists", "fallen devotees", "judases" etc who are all "jealous" of the Indian godman's growing "fame and name". Thats the message they constantly send out to Indian devotees. Sad. You should be able to verify this on on your own. Anyways, Sureshnaidu, for you info: many editors here, including myself are not "evangelists"( if that would address your 'concern').

As hard to believe as it can be that people can be this cult-crazed - the evidence for such behavior can be found right here - in posts made by devotees above. On seeing videos where he fakes tricks - devotees say that he is doing it to "test" them( see a few posts above). Of course, as far as this cult is concerned- "there is always an excuse for everything".

White adept (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sureshnaidu,

It's obvious that the article is clearly biased, but there is nothing you or me can do to change it, since it's edition is not open or free anymore. In short: this Wikipedia article is owned by anti-Baba "editors", and that's all.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another thing: it seems that Andries is playing a fake pro-Baba role, while it is another anti-Baba, just faking a pro-Baba attitude, but in reality he is together with White adept, but only enacting another point-of-view, so they together fill the whole space here.

I am not sure anbout it, but this is what it seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are so pro-baba as you claim maybe you could you explain this statement :[8] or the the one about bomb attacks?

Calmly think about it - isn't the most "anti-baba", "anti-devotee" here is the person named raju himself? By making a show of his stupidity, greed, deceit and debauchery - he has made a laughing stock out of his devotees and all those who blindly followed him.

Another one of raju's quotes:

Christ declared. Sathya means truth[Sathya is the word for truth in many Indian languages - including in sanskrit which far predates 1000 B.C. So why would Christ "declare" that?]. 'He will wear a robe of red, a blood-red robe.' [Here raju points to the red coloured robe he happened to be wearing that that day]. He will be short[this is never said in any scripture gnostic, bible or anything], with a crown [ he points to his hair]. The lamb is the sign and symbol of love. Christ did not declare that he will come again, he said, 'He who made me will come again.' That ba ba [here raju refers to the bleating of the lamb / sheep / goat: baaaaaa baaaaaa'] is this baba, and sai, the short, curly-hair-crowned red-robed baba, is come.

Note that "baba" is a persian-hindu word for a fakir. See: Baba (honorific). There have been countless "babas" in India and there still are thousands who call themselves babas. If you are so pro-baba as you claim could you explain these silly-to-the-extreme quotes for me?

White adept (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

EDITORS EXPOSED: A MUST SEE

Please Urgently See This Cartoon: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html

Editors seeing this simple cartoon can save dozens of hours of meaningless discussions about what's the problem with this current article here!

--189.15.94.60 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to "The Findings"

hey, it seems that the links to "The Findings" are now pointing to http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Findings/exbaba-findings.html

what is this? isn't it vandalism? shouldn't we block who is doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.68.137 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another uncorrected mistake due to severe neglect

"Bhagawan Sri Satya Sai BabaSathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram was born to Peddavenkama Raju and Eswaramma in a poor agrarian family in the remote village of Puttaparthi, located in Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh."

Andries (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

His name is Sathyanaryana, NOT Sathya Narayana. He was named Sathyanarayana by his mother in honour of the puja she completed on the day of his birth. Cite: Love is My Form, Chapter 1, Page 21

Father's name is Pedda Venkama Raju, NOT Peddavenkama Raju. This is on account of the fact that his Grandfather, Kondama Raju had TWO sons named Venkama Raju, and to differentiate, one was called Chinna Venkama Raju, the other Pedda Venkama Raju. Cite:Love is My Form, page 16-17; Love is My Form, Ratnakaram Family Tree, Pages 22-23 Saieditor (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Feel free to edit in with references incl. page numbers. I do not have the book 'Love is My Form Andries (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The purported "writings" of the godman - a section a user is attempting to add - I would like to point out is filled with unduly self-serving material. Self serving material and with self-serving comments made by a devotee - and not indicative of the mainstream's stance on such "writings." Further such things are not even authored by this "baba" but are stuff written and polished by the trust for promoting themselves - according to analysts.

"Books and writings endorsed by Sathya Sai Baba There are hundreds of books about Sai Baba in English alone. Sathya Sai Baba has stated to his servitors like V.K. Narasimhan that he loves to read books by authors who praise him. He is lauded by most writers, not only to the skies, but to above the highest heaven. He showers his supposed ‘grace’ only upon writers of rose-coloured and totally uncritical accounts of himself.

Unbelievable eulogies came from such writers as his biographer N. Kasturi, the Balu family, John Hislop, Howard Murphet, Samuel Sandweiss, Peggy Mason, J. Jegathesan, Phyllis Krystal, Joy Thomas, Rita Bruce, Birgitte Rodriguez and many more. I admit that I was deceived at the time I wrote my positive book about him - though it as one of the most restrained of all of them (excepting Prof. Erlendur Haraldssons often critical book). Only when I learned so much that I was forced - against my inclination - to re-evaluate nearly everything about him and to think critically and investigate thoroughly, did I begin to do so.

Meanwhile, most of the other authors have invested too much of their prestige and lives in their writings and engagement with this supposed ‘avatar’ of Vishnu, Rama and Krishna etc. to be able to be honest enough to investigate the evidence and realise many of their mistakes about him. This is reprehensible, of course, but the world will judge them when all the evidence is in, and it will certainly be to consider them major dupes, even though well-intentioned ones. Knowing a good deal about the tribulations at the hands of Sai Baba and his minions of several of the authors, their books are now mostly noteworthy to me for what they do not tell or consciously suppress!" - Robert Priddy

White adept (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Steel notes that these purported discourses are "packaged, highly edited, polished, condensed, enhanced, inaccurate, distant, different, adorned, significantly added to, snipped and hybridized" by the ' sathya sai trust.' White adept (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How interesting: White adept is an expert on "Sex Magic" and "Black Rites": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=prev&oldid=61314269

Rather, kindly see these two links where you can read the edit(s) of mine in full : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=61314638&oldid=61266871 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_magic&diff=62319131&oldid=62293553 White adept (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What I basically said on talk there is that there should, according to true traditions, be no sex out of marriage and there should be chastity in relationships and what the material on the page advocates( like stuff from some Crowley ) is not good and is evil in nature. And I, based on my spiritual studies, can absolutely affirm the same about this "baba." From an esoteric perspective, sexual abuse( what Mr Sing refers to as "the blowjob" in the BBC documentary) this person performs on innocent, unsuspecting victims reveals more than clearly its demonic nature and its need to continually absorb vital qi energy from victims, in a wretchedly-demonic manner to keep itself alive. This may sound far-fetched - but I can absolutely affirm it is so - it will also ask you to pray for it, to conduct rituals for it - for without the energy( your own energy ) you consciously give it - there is absolutely no way it can survive now. Also it will tell you that it can grant wishes - for every "wish" you ask and is "granted" there is something it takes from you - your vital energy - on an energetic plane it is irreversibly destroying you. Think about how "spiritual" it is to urge people to pray for material wishes? Why does it often launch into a speech glorifying its own "name and fame" ( which are all considered worthless attachments from a spiritual perspective )? Also of grave concern, from an esoteric perspective, is the grave unforgivable karma it makes devotees unconsciously gather by supporting, advocating and covering up for it. "Devotees" who support it through poojas, through actions or through thoughts will have to bear a share for the destructive acts of this thing - including for supporting its perverting of authentic traditions. While this person sexually, energetically, karmically, morally and spiritually destroys his "devotees"; Listen to what true spiritual seekers will tell you:

"If the sexual energy is transmuted into ojas or spiritual energy by pure thoughts, it is called sex sublimation in western psychology. Sublimation is not a matter of suppression or repression, but a positive, dynamic, conversion process. It is the process of controlling the sex energy, conserving it, then diverting it into higher channels, and finally, converting it into spiritual energy or ojas shakti. The material energy is changed into spiritual energy, just as heat is changed into light and electricity. Just as a chemical substance is sublimated or purified by raising the substance through heat into vapor which again is condensed into solid form, so also, the sexual energy is purified and changed into divine energy by spiritual sadhana." - Swami Sivananda

"The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama

While mentioning this, I think am obliged to clarify that such practices as male-female dual cultivation of the White Tibetan Tantrism should only be undertaken by someone who has reached an extremely high level and has completely and without trace overcome lust, desires and material attachments. One can casually dabble in esoteric practices like this only at the risk of absolute self-ruin. Second - I personally am not into any of this white tantrism stuff and am unmarried. So, if anything, am merely an Intellectual Expert as regards White Tantrism and also please dont resort to personal attacks.

White adept (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a place to sell sai merchandize?

The article is being run over and ruined by so called "devotees". See for instance now how an anonymous IP now thinks wikipedia is a place to advertise his sai goods. He wont stop, wont take no reason, and absolutely refuses to discuss - he seems to take for granted this as a place to sell his merchandise. White adept (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And why are you consciously attempting to mislead other editors with these claims? Who told you devotees do that?? This is what devotees, including many who held top-most positions in the organization, do. Am pretty darn sure it is not that you are not aware. And if it were just ignorance - kindly make sure that you read at least one of the vahinis.

(A link to What Sai Baba says about [Selfless Service])

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, The Times, The Guardian have all covered what this cult all about. Lol. :) And am definitely aware. We all know what "selfless service" they did by bashing up a 70 year old man four times. BBC report: [9] By stealing kidneys from patients in their hospital : See Australian Broadcasting Corporation Report. By robbing an old women of her home. See Tehelka Report[10]. By treating young boys in their "charity school" as pleasure-merchandize for this wretched "baba" ( See sediced doc and The Findings) . By killing four young boys so that they dont reveal anything. By getting donations of million in the name of "service" to build chariots out of gold, BMWs and several luxury palaces for their leader. By driving four young men to suicide through sexual abuse. See Times Report[11]

White adept (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop doing your merchandise for this "Findings". This document is fraudulent. Its contents are not reliable. Please, see: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Findings/exbaba-findings.html

Let me provide a link so people can read any PAGE of one of the sixteen Sai Baba's book - not as merchandise, but so they can click something here and start to know Sai Baba for real. You put tons of links to this biased doc and you don't want me to put links to Baba's words in his own article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is completely lacking in academic/media notablity. Do The BBC doc, Times, DTV doc etc even mention it? You cannot advertize here. This is a wikipedia article not "baba's" propaganda park. I dont understand why you still try to deceive and recruit innocents into this cult? What wretched pleasure do you get by doing this? White adept (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take utmost care when dealing with controversial statements on a BLP article

This note is meant as a reminder to all editors involved with this article to exercise caution, particularly when dealing with material which could be viewed as either defamatory or self-serving. Wikipedia requires that we adequately source information about living individuals to the utmost standard, and that anything which does not adhere to these standards must be removed immediately (no mere citation notices or talk page notice, although a talk page mention in addition to removal would not be a bad idea). ←Spidern→ 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Confrontation between editors, and the solution

I have noted heated arguments aimed in both directions for this article. The subject is clearly controversial, and if we're ever going to improve it we need to agree on certain principles. Wikipedia has several policies which we absolutely must abide by here, or else we will end up with an article that is interwoven with a mishmash of unsourced criticism and praise. I suggest that all parties involved have a read through some of these policies:

• Reliable sources - Possibly the most important Wikipedia policy available. We must stick to independent, secondary and tertiary sources (rather than primary ones, such as unpublished critics or Sai Baba-affiliated organizations). There are literally thousands of these to choose from.
• Neutrality - It is important that we don't use language which is overly hostile or supportive of the subject. If information expressed is an opinion, attribute it to the person used in the source holding that opinion.
• Verifiability - If a claim is made by multiple reliable sources, then it is considered to be Verifiable. We must remember that Wikipedia is not meant to be an outlet for truth; the idea of "truth" can be subjective, and vary from person to person. Instead, all we can do is base our content on reliable sources that report on the subject matter.

If we stick to these principles, we can get a lot done with much less personal confrontation, and avoid escalations to dispute resolution, such as arbitration cases. Those options should only be available as last resorts. In the end, true resolution comes when individuals decide that they will put aside personal differences and write an encyclopedia. ←Spidern→ 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts to ensure objectivity is very much appreciated ( and was certainly much needed). Would certainly try my very best to make my edits conform to the wiki-principles you outlined above. White adept (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seduced by Sai Baba

FYI, the documentary under this title was produced by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, not a Dutch one. For more info, see this link: [12]. ←Spidern→ 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from lead

The controversies were again brought to media attention when two long-term devotees (and authors of three books on Sai Baba, which they removed from the market upon their discovery of abuse and deceit), David and Faye Bailey, published a document which they titled "The Findings.". The document carried testimony from many ex-devotees, including those who had held high positions in the organization, to the effect that the godman fakes his "materializations", doesn't magically heal the sick, and also testimonies from several victims of sexual-abuse and testimonies revealing economic foul-play in the organization.

This paragraph suffers from a lack of reliable sourcing, and undue weight this document which was not published by a third-party organization or peer-reviewed by academics. The source provided is a possible copyvio of Salon, which could be used elsewhere in the article. ←Spidern→ 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think part of this paragraph is reliably sourced to the article by Michelle Goldberg in salon.com Andries (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was centrally relevant since we are not sourcing from the document itself but mentioning that the controversies were again brought to media attention when the document was published - a fact which can be sourced to Michelle Goldberg's article. White adept (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, Id like to hear your perspective on it before restoring it. White adept (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another removed paragraph

According to ex-devotee David Bailey, the author of three books on the baba and co-author of The Findings: "During darshan, Sai Baba carries vibhuti in tablet form between the third and fourth fingers of his right hand, with spare tablets in the hand holding up his robe. He crushes a tablet when required, and transfers tablets during the taking of letters. I have watched this happen innumerable times... Tablet-palming can be clearly seen on many videos, if slowed down to frame-by frame viewing, including in our wedding day interview video, used at the beginning of “God lives in India.” This video has been removed from sale by the Trust. Australian television, in it’s programme ’60 Minutes’ showed how these ‘B grade’ conjuring tricks are done." He says that "All powder vibhuti is produced by roasting cow dung with sandal wood, and manufactured vibhuti bought elsewhere, is then double sieved by ladies of the ashram seva dal, before being packaged for interview room distribution.". Bailey also states that the jewelery made by the baba are often "worthless trinkets" some of which "are bought in Puttaparthi village, but mainly they come from Bangalore and Hyderabad." He states that the jewels in these are often colored glass with silver paper pasted behind.

This paragraph suffers from undue weight, and the document linked to is not peer reviewed or published by a third party. ←Spidern→ 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Older versions of this article contained a carefully worded reliably sourced paragraph that treated the Findings without using the Findings as a source. And by the way, why is the Findings called an initial report when it was clearly not? Intial report was Tal Brooke's book. Andries (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the "Writings" section

This section was first created at revision 265642703 (04:50, 22 January 2009), together with another modifications in the article, but it was removed in revision 265660619 (07:48, 22 January 2009).

I myself tried to add it again, but without other modifications in the article, in revision 265718618

Next, several unsucessfull tries of removing the "Writings" section of the article were made (see history logs from 16:26, 22 January 2009 to 18:43, 22 January 2009), but these tentatives stopped with the intervention of Huggle (application for dealing with vandalism).

After the above mentioned wipe-out failure, the "Writings" section contents were merged into another place in this highly controversial edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=265755100 revision 265755100).

But this section is a major improvement on the Sathya Sai baba article!

Based on the study of Wikipedia policies, the current article: - is not a Neutral-Point-Of-View representative - does not respect basic human dignity - suffers from information supression

While the "Writings" section itself follow all Wikipedia's policies, it also moves the article towards: - Neutral Point Of View (the "Writings" section informations are neutral, and the well chosen citation from professor Kasturi's preface for the Upanishad Vahini published Sai Baba's book does a little balance, considering the overweight of negative citations) - basic human dignity (gives due respect to the subject) - gives access to very important and notable information about the subject (Baba has written sixteen books on spirituality)

Conclusion: The "Writings" section is a very good and well done effort towards the improvement of Sai Baba's article.

Thanks.

--I myself again (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I myself again, I recognize that you are trying to make a valuable contribution on the subject. I can understand and empathize with your intentions, but there are some problems with the content you added. While you did source it, the three sources are what we consider to be primary sources. Since primary sources are so closely connected to the subject itself, and due to the controversial nature of the subject, we are obligated to use secondary and tertiary sources. These include Newspaper articles, and independent print publications such as books or academic journals. You can find some linked to above, (see books, journals, and news). If you are able to create a writings section based on any of the mentioned reliable sources, it would be most welcome. ←Spidern→ 04:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this can be done. I did not find sources. SSB is not famous because of his writings. Andries (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be surprised. Local libraries are a great resource. If you use the Google scholar search to find scholarly sources above, you can request them or in some cases if your library belongs to a university, directly access them. Drop me an email if you need any further assistance. ←Spidern→ 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will try, but what I have seen until now in reputable sources is that SSB's controversies are treated, his miracles, his appeal, sometimes his teachings, his habits, the ashram, only rarely his speeches, but never his writings. Andries (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dale Beyerstein

Source : Dale Beyerstein, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC Canada

Subject: In reply to a letter sent to him from Dr Elwndur Haraldsson, University of Iceland - October 1985.

(...) I certainly agree with the point you make at the end of your book that in the absence of agreement for controlled testing of claimed paranormal powers, we must make rough and ready judgements analogous (similar in certain respects) with judgements made in court house contexts. Analogous but not identical for obvious reasons.

On these sorts of grounds the evidence seems overwhelming against taking the materialisation claims seriously.

Sai Baba is caught out in self-puffery in so many instances - allowing omniscience claims when his language abilities are only average, and so on. And not only allowing them, but making them himself. And he speaks so loosely in so many ways that his denials that he uses sleight of hand cannot be given any real weight. The overwhelming evidence - given the film analysis, the loose anecdotal nature of the claims etc all point so definitely in this direction.

Moreover the widespread claims of sexual hanky panky and the evidence of association with the gold business - although not conclusive - must be seriously entered into the overall picture.

On the question you asked : 'Sam Dalal' is a name given by James Randi. Randi in a phone conversation said that Sai Baba 'materialised' a Seiko watch for a Seiko watch company executive visiting India. Sam Dalal asked for the serial number from the executive as I understood it, and got it. The number was then sent back to Japan for tracing. Turns out the number was a watch which was to have been stored in a warehouse not far from the site where the 'materialisation' took place.

B. Premanand (IRM) mentions Kasturi deleted the Seiko reference from his book after the investigation.(.....).

The letter is reproduced on many websites, in Premanand's writings, in The Findings and in several other sources. There was a citation needed tag near a statement from Dale Beyerstein. Perhaps it could be fixed now. White adept (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this deleted?

[13] I think this was a well-sourced paragraph clearly related to the notability of SSB. (Sick young man goes to SSB with the hope to get healed by SSB as per SSB's claims but is homosexually abused by SSB. He is so confused and distraught that he commits suicide.) Andries (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the user must have deleted it because of the extremely misleading way it was phrased - which I have found is a characteristic tactic of deceit used by baba's cover-up men of turning the tide against the victim and the baba acusser - through cunning deception. Source is fine - but the content was made to sound like the straight opposite of what the original article said - and it is 100% percent understandable if someone felt it should be deleted. The edit summary was nevertheless a little misleading - but very understandable if the edit was meant to root out deception.

Will fix and restore relevant content from the article you pointed out -Titled: Three die after putting faith in guru[sai baba] - a story about three young men being driven to suicide by the mad beliefs of this cult - two very likely as a result of self-disgust from direct homosexual abuse from the "baba". White adept (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I already explained here [14] Jonson22 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonson22, thanks for your explanation. I strongly disagree with you in the case of the suicide of Mr. Michael Pender. You may be right about the other two cases.

here is an excerpt from the article ‘The truth will prevail...’:a Sai-devotee’s struggle for disenchantment by Matthijs van der Meer Published in Spiegelbeeld October issue 2000.

"Or maybe precisely by the grace of an even traumatic experience Baba had guided people towards leading a more normal life. "Then what about the suicide of Michael?" I countered. "Well, after all we all have free will, don’t we?" was the response. "And didn’t he have AIDS too?" I became dumbfounded. But Ralli sustained: "I’ve written it down: this boy was HIV-positive and came back very ill.

Notice this: the only one whom he could ever have spoken to about Michael was Keith, who described him as "so vital". So what was I to make of this? But I wasn’t left in doubt for long. Keith and I were invited to have dinner with his mother, who showed me many pictures of Michael: a handsome white who had had himself snapshot naughtily smiling almost without exception. Sometime afterwards I was to see how for a moment tears of anger sprang into her eyes: "It is such a damned fact that had Sai Baba not been there, Michael would still be alive today." "

Andries (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right about Michael, but only about him complaining of being sexually molested. Probably I wasn't paying attention on each story, because they were in the same article.

But we must be objective as much as possible. And as Sai Baba have a lot of devotee so he have a lot of haters. How much of the truth is coming from both sides?

About sexual abuse: as stated here [15] (in the section sex abuse) we must be transpersonal and professional to write an article with no personal motives. Why write about every reported sexual abuse? Put it down in references for further reading. But I didn't notice in article explanation that no charges have never been filed officially in India and he has never been convicted for sexually abuse. So my question is: why isn't mention that?

This should be a neutral and honest article about living person, not debate about whether he is good or bad.

Well, I hope that article will be in future more neutral. Jonson22 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. it is there: "In an article that was published in the India Today magazine in December 2000, it was stated that no complaints had been filed against Sathya Sai Baba by any alleged victim, in India." Andries (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there have been cases filed - including in the supreme court, for instance by Hari Sampath. Cases have been filed by young Indians alleging abuse - but are quickly covered up through political power-play and the abuse-victims end up at the receiving end of hate-propaganda campaigns from devotees. Also , there are many including Germans who have had to take help from their Embassy to escape after being dogged by the police in Puttapurthi. A substantial portion of villagers, merchants and policemen in the village are henchmen of the baba business because they directly benefit from the godman's popularity. Legal procedure in India would require complaints to be filed directly with the puttapurthi police - no Indian in a sane state of mind would dare even think of that. Further any such case, successfully filed, would come under media attention - the person who filed it cannot escape to another country but will have to live amongst devotees. And, for such a case to reach a resolution in India's legal system can require several years. Other factors include cultural aspects - which make it highly improbable that a homosexual abuse victim would reveal his experience - because he will be looked-down by the society( as a gay-victim) for the rest of his life. Still, I understand, there are many cases that have been filed by Indians.

See how very smoothly the four murders in the baba's own bedroom was covered up without a problem. Even the CBI ( Indian eqv. of the FBI ) couldn't conduct a proper investigation.

A 70 year old like Basava Premanand had 4 attempts at his life when he dared to speak out against this baba - that was despite the fact that he is a renowned "fake-guru buster" in India and also the author of several books and articles.

Sanal Edamaruku states: "The media[in India] is scared, basically. For example when the big scandal about SB’s sexual abuse on people arose. And look at the Indian media. There was only one newspaper from New Delhi which produced the story. People are so afraid, so scared because he is politically powerful and his influence is so real and he can damage if he is criticised. Anybody (who) criticises is eliminated, or attacked or cornered or isolated. Having a press conference on SB’s 70th birthday, the very next day I found that my car parts were removed in the morning so that I could simply have an accident. It could look like a coincidence. Such things happen several times, but we are not afraid. We are not going to be cowed down by that thing. We’re waiting for that time that people come out openly and expose this cheat."

Larsson states that when he dared to speak out: "I was threatened that I would be shot when I should go to Poland. And now one has tried a new tactic, from the Sai movement, and that is to send out messages about me saying I am a convicted pedophile. They have, so to speak, turned around the entire problematic and say that what Sai Baba is guilty of - pedophilia – is what I am guilty of. I and the other guys who have dared to speak out – it is us who are pedophiles. And they have send this announcement out across the globe. And Sai followers believe it."

"Ex-devotees have contacted the FBI, Interpol, the Indian Supreme Court and a host of other agencies, hoping for help in their battle against the guru." - Michelle Goldberg

White adept (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Go work for police. Wikipedia is not police station! Jonson22 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And you, buddy, could, am sure, serve the mafia well! Talk about cover-up strategies and misleading discussion!! I just addressed/clarified the issues you raised. If the subject of discussion is criminal activities of the person what else would be the context of the discussion?

White adept (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

copied from the book gurus in America. "As observers also report, given the strong following Baba has among prominent and national civic leaders in India, it is extremely unlikely that a case against Baba would be heard there or that he wouold be extradited to face charges elsewhere."Andries (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

copied from the book gurus in America. "Many prominent persons in India are devotees of Satya Sai Baba and he is also instrumental to many politicians in securing votes, Baba is accordingly largely left alone by the government and, therefore, relatively free from prosecution for any alleged offense related over the Internet, which has the twin effects of leaving his detractors angry about the lack of due process and his proponents angry about unsubstantiated libel without recourse. "Andries (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Move this section to new article

I propose that this section Controversies and reports of criminal conduct should be moved to new article, because there are so many haters of Sai Baba that article itself looks like "hater page" or "newspaper archive" and not biography. This is BLP and it should be neutral and transpersonal. Some editors when editing have in mind that "it should be shown the truth about this man". Wikipedia is not place to do it that way. Jonson22 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There used to be an article Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba but it was merged with this article. I oppose restoring it without consensus (or large majority of agreement) because this might be construed as a Wikipedia:POV fork. Andries (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

These allegations are central to the notability of the person. 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." National Television in several countries have covered the allegations - these being central to the person's notability and not some fringe allegations we have no choice but to present it to the reader to make the article neutral, informative and objective.

White adept (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

either delete this article ...whoever editing this article are neither polite nor truthful.they are literally brimming with hatred for satya sai baba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But this is not "newspaper arhive" to write down all allegations! It should be just stated like that...

"there were several allegation of sexual abuse but non of the charges have ever been filed officially in India and he has never been convicted for sexually abuse."

...(and put some references) Simple, clear, informative, transpersonal, proffesional and factual!

Because, if there is no officialy conviction then the person stand as inocent as stated in UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in article 11

And I don't care what do you think, because you're not authority of any kind to show us "your truth"

Stop with this non-sense.

And by the way: then write some positive things about this person, not just negative. It's obvious that you're biased. Jonson22 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an archive. Such an archive would run to hundreds if not a few thousand pages. Perhaps a

"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."-The BBC

could be helpful or

"Ex-devotees have contacted the FBI, Interpol, the Indian Supreme Court and a host of other agencies, hoping for help in their battle against the guru."

And this is not "my truth" in anyway!! It is that of thousands of victims, of revelations and investigative reports by The BBC, DTV, CBC, ABC, Times etc.; of Goverments: American, German, British, Swedish and more. Of researchers like Kovoor, Premanand, Sanal, Baileys etc. Of Professors: Priddy, Narasimhaiah, Beyerstein etc. Of those in the legal system like the ex-secretary to the Home Minister of Andhra Pradesh, CBI officials etc.

White adept (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it. This is just an article about some living person and not government agency for convicting people the "truth" about him and making war against him!

Do you understand now? Jonson22 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest - I dont get what you are driving at one wee bit. Just out of curiosity, does this extremely convoluted personal philosophy of yours apply to Osama bin Laden also?

As for me, I will, in no way, consciously support deception or white-washing a criminal that you are advocating above - and it is not anybody "convicting" anything - but its merely objective information -->highly pertinent<-- to issues that are central to the person's notability as carried in Leading International Media being presented to the reader in a balanced, structured and inforamtive manner.

White adept (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What deception? What white-washing a criminal? This is police matter. You're trying to do the police job here on wikipedia. The job of police is to detect criminal act, to pursue criminals, to gather evidences and so on. Wikipedia is not police station to do so. Get a job at police station if you want to work that kind of job. Just don't do it here on wikipedia.

You mention Osama bin Laden. In some countries the governments declared him as criminal and therefore looking after him. But no so with Sai Baba. Look this section [16] and compare it with this section [17]. Can you notice difference? You exaggerate the topic. Jonson22 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What?? With the Osama analogy I was only pointing out the flaw in your logic - in the argument your presented. If the content I add fails to meet WP:N or WP:OR then there is an issue - adding centrally relevant content from sources like BBC or CBC is absolutely not unencyclopaedic - hope you understand that!! What are you - some kinda cover-up-agent??? We present objective, netrual and comprehensive outline of issues central to the person's notability - whats wrong with that?? Isnt that what we are supposed to be doing here? If the issues pertinent to his notability are negative - we are left with no choice but to cover them( and not cover them up ) - for the sake of keeping the article comprehensive and informative. White adept (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know: - Which Governments are concerned? - Who wrote this comment? ("BBC"? It must be someone in BBC... who?) - What sources of information were used to make a statement like this? It is an easy phrase to write, but... I have not seen any warning in any government webpage for the whole world. Maybe governments feel responsibility about what they say, while the BBC journalist is only practicing sensationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.75.237 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-iterated in BBC's official response to Asia Times, BBC articles, BBC documentary "Secret Swami" etc. Goverments: Sweden, Denmark, Australian, Canadian, British, German, American and more - please research online. You may, for instance, want to check the American Embassy website. Tony Blair's letter to a British MP on the issue, UNESCO statement etc. If you look at forums and all you'll see people paid by the cult and some financially dependent on it going around claiming the UNESCO thing, American consulate thing is all a lie made up by critics, etc. Such blatant absurdities can be easily unsusbstantiated through a bit of on-line research For instance The American Consulate's warning can be read here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consular_Information_Sheet_-_India . BBC notes that the Consulate has confirmed it is a direct reference to raju. White adept (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisations are they treated here or not?

We should decided whether organisations are treated here or in Sathya Sai organisation or sathya sai baba movement. User:White adept deleted nearly everything relating to the organizations and re-added only the negative aspects from the Findings. This is not NPOV. I think the organizations should either be treated here entirely (the good, the bad and the ugly) or somewhere else.

The main problem with treating the organizations here is that the relationship between SSB and the organizations is unclear and not described in reliable sources. Is he a figurehead or a de facto leader? Reputable sources do not give an answer. So I propose to move/merge everything to Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If Britney spear's music is treated in the page about her, an authors works are discussed objectively in the page on the author, this person's works and what he is about should be summarily discussed here. No need to cover things up. I have stuck to sources like the Times, ABC, Tehelka, BBC etc and "The Findings" is a compilation of articles from different sources - hope you understand that. Only the most relevant did I touch upon. And by the way, which exactly is this section on organization that you are talking about?

White adept (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about this one-sided treatment of the organizations. An by the way do not confuse the Sathya Sai Organization with the Sathya Sai Central Trust. What is the relation between the person of Sathya Sai Baba and these organizations? It is not clear from the article and it cannot be made clear because it is unknown. In other words, treatment of the organizations can be considered with good reason off topic here.

"Central to the activities if the Sai organization is raising of funds which, the organization claims, are used for charity. According to an article by the Indian news-agency Thehelka, all donations to the Sathya Sai Central Trust have been given tax exemptions and the total value of the Sai Baba's recorded assets, movable and immovable, both within the country and abroad, is Rs 5,000 crores( approx. 1 Billion USD), "give or take a bit". The article states that every year, the Sathya Sai Central Trust is bloated with donations worth approximately Rs 65 crore. It also has about Rs 130 crore in fixed deposits (FD) and other term deposits all over the world. The trust has so far raised about Rs 385 crore in the form of loans for some of the Sai Baba's projects.[77]"

Andries (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it central to activities preached by this man and his foundation? Also its just an objective presentation of the relevant statistics. Collection of funds is central to the activities of devotees following raju's teachings as many analysts note. It is with this money that he built himself a chariot of gold, lives a luxury life, has the walls of his rooms plated with gold, gets chauffeured around in his several BMWs etc. Also the clearest explanation why it is centrally relevant was offered by raju himself:

“ The whole world will be transformed into Sathya Sai organisation ” —  Raju alias "sai-baba." "Sanathana sarathi", January 1999).

“ Out of the stomach emerged siva lingas of the weight of three tons. That is the reason why some strain on the face and body. ” —  Raju alias "sai baba". Words recorded by BBC

Not that it makes any more sense than what he blurted in front of clandestine BBC cameras( click the second quote for the video ) but it nevertheless explains why discussion of the organization is central to this page. Do we need a blockquote in the article to make this point clear?

Here is a recent quote. Not directly related to this discussion. But thought you might find it interesting.

"India is the only place where people are not worried about any attacks. In America , Germany and other countries, they cant eat well or sleep well. There is fear of bombs always in those countries. But in India, there is no fear of bombs. India will never have any such attacks."- Raju alias "sai-baba" on 22-10-2008. On 29-10-2008 was the terrorist attack on one of India's largest cities, Bombay in which around 195 innocents lost their lives.

White adept (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with White adept's one sided negative treatment of the organizations. Either the organizations should be treated here (the good, the bad, and the ugly) or at Sathya Sai Baba movement copied from the book gurus in America. "While some have suggested that the amount of actual service rendered by Baba is much less than the amount publicized, from my observation, members of many Sai Centers are exemplary in terms of their service to the community" Andries (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Prema Sai Baba incl. references

"Baba's biography claimed that his next incarnation "Prema(love) Sai Baba" will be born in Mysore State.[citation needed]"

from the deleted article Prema Sai Baba

Prema Sai Baba will be the male reincarnation of Shakti in the 21st century according to the prediction by the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba first mentioned Prema Sai Baba in a discourse on July 6, 1963 in which he stated that he is the second of three avatars, the first avatar being Shirdi Sai Baba and the future avatar being Prema Sai Baba .

According to his official biography (also labelled a hagiography) by Narayana Kasturi, Prema Sai Baba will be born in Mysore state. Many followers of SSB believe that Prema Sai Baba will be born in a village near the city Mysore in the year 2021, due to devotees claims that SSB divulged this information to them in private interviews.

In the discourse on 6 July 1963 SSB claimed to be a reincarnation of Shiva and Shakti in 1963. SSB further said in the discoure that his previous incarnation Shirdi Sai Baba was an incarnation of Shiva and that Prema Sai Baba would be a reincarnation of Shakti. In contrast, Narayana Kasturi’s official biography/hagiography of SSB stated that Shirdi Sai Baba was Shakti incarnated and that Prema Sai Baba was to be an incarnation of Shiva.

According to Donald Taylor in a 1987 article titled "Charismatic authority in the Sathya Sai Baba movement”, Sathya Sai Baba's 1963 declaration that he would reincarnate as Prema Sai Baba defused the problem of authority. According to Taylor, all authority remains firmly in Sathya Sai Baba's hands as long as he lives and anyone else who claims authority in his lifetime would be recognized as an imposter .

Andries, will you kindly sign your posts? The first two sources you used are not generally permissible by Wikipedia standards here. Sathya Sai Baba discourses are certainly off limits, because they are considered a primary source. And N. Kasturi's book is also off limits because it is published by Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can only rely on academic/third-party sources here, which do not prognosticate. ←Spidern→ 16:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please, Spidern, do you seriously suggest to remove all biographical information that is sourced either directly or indirectly to Kasturi? Then there will be no biographical information left. Andries (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If we have a secondary source that summarizes Kasturi, that is permissible. But we cannot source to him directly. Have a look at the present sources in the article: there is nothing that is sourced to Kasturi right now. ←Spidern→ 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Narayana Kasturi "According to the anthropologist Lawrence A. Babb, virtually all existing accounts of Sathya Sai Baba's life are based on the hagiographic writings of Narayana Kasturi."Andries (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we source most of the biographical information to Babb, instead of web magazines of doubtful quality. At least Babb is honest about his sources (Kasturi) and realizes its very limited value. Andries (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources are generally of higher quality, but we don't have to use them exclusively. As long as it's published by a reputable source (be it a book, journal, or news media), there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to use it. ←Spidern→ 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but newspaper that uncritically use Kasturi's "biography" should not be used for this article without attribution. Andries (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case there is a good reason to be wary of newspapers because they have uncritically used Kasturi's hagiography without attribution. I think in this case we should use Babb or other academic sources. Andries (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new sentences

"Sathya Sai Baba predicted that the third and last incarnation of the three avatars, called "Prema Sai Baba" (or "Prem Sai") will be born in Karnataka state.Prema Sai will be an incarnation of Shiva.Andries (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Capriciousness and lilas

One striking feature of SSB's behavior that is missing in the article is his capriciousness which he admits with his famous slogan "Love my uncertainty". His capriciousness is closely connected to the devotees' tendency to interpret SSB's behavior as lilas. I think this should be added to the article.

Proposed new sentences.

"Sathya Sai Baba's behavior and especially his miracles tend be capricious. Often his unpredictable behavior is interpreted as lilas (divine plays) by his devotees."Andries (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

About Radiantenergy

RadiantEnergy, you appear to be a new user (just registered in Jan, 2009), but you also appear to be very knowledgeable about arb com rulings and wikipedia policies, which is unusual for such a new editor. my question is, are you an experienced user under a new name? or are you just a new user who's learned very quickly? thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered question similar to yours when discussing in the wikipedia biography notice board. I will clarify again. Users who look at my user page history assumes that I am new to wikipedia. But I am not new to wikipedia. I have been contributing to wikipedia in a couple of articles since 2007 as unregistered user. Here's some of the articles I have contributed since 2007.

• Ramakrishna
• Swami Vivekananda

These were not controversial topics. Wikipedia never enforced any rule saying I have to first register as a user to contribute to wikipedia. It was my choice to register as a user or not. I had followed a couple of topics in wikipedia closely since 2007. Brahma Kumari - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumari. Sathya Sai Baba and Prem Rawat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat. All these articles have been very controversial and had years of edit wars. I had followed the second arbitration on Sathya Sai Baba very closely. Unfortunately even after 2 arbitrations this article seems to be going nowhere. I know its a very controversial topic so I decided to register as a user before starting my contributions to this article. Its going to be the most challenging task compared to the other articles I have contributed so far. I am hopeful that this article can be improved if we try sincerely. I have spent a lot of time in familiarising myself with all the earlier discussions, arbitration rulings and proposals. I firmly believe that following Jossi Proposals and arbitration commitee rulings will definitely help us in improving this article. Hope I have answered all your questions. :::RadiantEnergy 07 february 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks. you did answer all my questions, and i do appreciate the work you are doing here Theserialcomma (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Request: try to avoid mass revert/complete reverts

Can all users agree to not to make mass reverts/complete reverts unless with very good reason. Most edits have some merit, so please spend the time to weed out the good from the bad and the ugly. Also, as I have stated already several times, please take the time to read the former discussion and look at older versions of the article: the discussion used to be more knowlegeable (though also more hostile) and the article used to be better, in my opinion.Andries (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation by BostonMA

To resolve edit warring between editors there was a mediation by BostonMA. Several sources related to the Sathya Sai Baba article were discussed.

• Reliable Sources: This mediation has detailed information on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation#Understanding_the_Reliable_Sources_Policy
• Inadequately Sourced Materials: Detailed discussion on why some of the unreliable sources which are used heavily in the current article cannot be used.

• Some of the Unreliable sources which were discussed includes The Findings by Bailey - never published by reputable source.
• Site alleged videos of faked materializations.

• Discussion on use of websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Use_of_Websites
• Determination of Reputable Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Implementation_of_Policies#Determination_of_Reputable_Sources

Here's the mediation link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots of alleged materialization were often first published by reputable sources and I think this is okay. Andries (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I spent hours doing research to add pieces to show a more neutral portrait of Sathya Sai Baba; I was very kind and did not remove all the rhetoric and angry statements that are clearly added by anti-Sai activists. A person googling Sai Baba wikipedia would never be able to weed through all the anti-Sai, but would get turned away from even the anti-sentiment due to the angry tones that it is written. Can't everyone agree to make the Wikipedia page just state facts, like an encyclopedia? If people want to go to the pro-Sai websites or the anti-Sai websites, they can do so after reading the simple Wikipedia page. Thank you. ----

The reason why there were 2 arbitrations and endless edit wars was because this article is weakly sourced. :Arbitration commitee has recommended editors to use NPOV sources. If all the editors use these proposed sources I am sure this article can be improved. I do agree that this article still heavily uses the same weak sources for which the previous editors were banned. To weed out these unreliable sources and make it truly NPOV will be a challenge and its going to take time. ::RadiantEnergy 04 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I have stated many times, I checked the recommended sources and they are not very suitable for this article. They are fine for Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we merge the Sathya Sai Baba movement with this article. The movement should be a part of this article. ::RadiantEnergy 06 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that that is a good idea. Both articles are already quite long and it is like merging Christianity with Jesus. Andries (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, If you are serious about merging, which I hope you are not, then please propose it here Wikipedia:Proposed_merger. Andries (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically the Sathya Sai Movement should be part of the Sathya Sai Baba article. The Sathya Sai Baba article is unbalanced right now, highly critical and heavily uses unreliable sources. If we get enough positive reliable material / sources related to this article and succeed in improving it then we don't have to merge the movement with the main article. If we fail then we may have to merge these two in order to make it more balanced. First step will be to improve the main article. ::RadiantEnergy 08 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is in part highly critical because reliable sources have reported about him highly critically. I see no problem with that. Andries (talk)

Hi Radiantenergy, even I consider the current version overly critical. To get rid of most of the unreliable sources you only have to go back to an older version. Your intention to merge the two articles that describe different subjects if you do not like the end result of what reputable sources have stated, sounds to me like a reverse Wikipedia:POV fork. Andries (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way Radiantenergy, I have used some of the recommended sources on the talk page and waiting for you or others to incorporate them in the article. Andries (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How many relevant notable facts that can be sourced to reliable sources exist? Very few. Andries (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC

Vandalism

This is a controversial article which went through 2 arbitrations. Please don't delete major sections of the article with out discussing in the talk page. It is considered as Vandalism in wikipedia. Lately there has been increased vandalism incidents. If you have any concerns please discuss in the talk page. If you plan to contribute to this article please familiarise yourself with the earlier discussions and also discuss your edits first in the talk page. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

• [18]

"rv point of view)": what do you want to say?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.92.250 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba - Breaches in the new template / current version rewritten by User:White_Adept and your feedback

Before starting the discussion I would like clarify on the old and new template.

• What's the Old Template of the article  : Is the copy of the article which was maintained till Jan 5th 2009 before User:White_adept breaches. Here's the article copy as of Jan 5th 2009 - Please see the contents - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=262058572&oldid=262058463
• What's the new template of the article: The new template is the current article after [[User:White_Adept] 300+ edits based on unreliable sources and breaching most of the WP:BLP rules. The Current article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Arbitration rulings breaches in the current article:

• Second Arbitration ruling on NPOV Sources:

New template rewritten by User:White_Adept has breached this ruling directly as it heavily relies on unreliable sources such as "The Findings". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Initial_report_-_.27The_Findings.27

• Second Arbitration ruling on poor negative sources:

New template added by User:White_Adept has several POV sections based on poor negative unreliable sources. Directly breaching the above ruling.

It relies on unreliable sources such as Basava Premananda and his book which were never accepted as reliable sources during BostonMA mediation discussions. Here are the sections from reference Basava Premananda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram

• Second Arbitration ruling on attack websites: Second arbitration made it very clear not to use negative attack websites in the article like Priddy. I saw a couple of negative attack website which were used in this new template directly breaching the above ruling.

Examples of negative attack sites used in the article

• http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/8/extramurders.htm
• http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/Murders.htm
• http://saiguru.net

What's BLP's have been breached in this new template:

• Reliable Sources - WP:RS: This rule have been breached I have already explained how we have major sections of unreliable stories in the article.
• The current article has clearly failed to meet Wikipedia:Verifiabilty standards
• The article is biased and has 90% WP:UNDUE Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. Due to User:White_Adept's biased editing the Criticism on Baba in this article has been increased from 40% to 90% directly violating wikipedia policy on WP:UNDUE criticism on a Biography of Living Persons.
• Article is openly biased and violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style as it is written neither in neutral or encyclopedic tone.

Important Proposals - Please read your feedback is requested

As the new template / current article rewritten by User:White_Adept violates most of the WP:BLP and Remedies of Second Arbitration Ruling we are left with only two options.

First Proposal: Reverting to the Old Template

• The old template was more balanced in nature and is definitely a better version.
• The old template has been maintained for all these years and did not break all of the WP:BLP rules and arbitration rulings as in the new template.

Please give your feed back mentioning whether you agree with this proposal.

Second Proposal: Proposal for Deleting the article

• As the current new template breaks all the above rules it can be proposed to be deleted as it defaming a Living Person based on unreliable sources and clearly Wikipedia:Libel. Wikipedia policy of Biography of Living Persons says as follows "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed".

Please give your feedback. Please clearly mention whether you agree with this proposal or not.

Please Note:

We cannot just continue with the current state of the article violating all these rulings.

Editing and trying to rectify the 300+ edits of User:White_Adept is out of question as almost every major section and contents has been restructured and rewritten.

Unless the article is reverted to the earlier better version the disruption done by User:White_Adept can never be rectified.

Please add your feed back below - You can even add your preference like this is my first choice and this proposal is my second choice.

Radiantenergy (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Feed Back / Response to the above Proposals:

1. Proposal for Reverting the article to earlier version as of Jan 5th 2009:

Reverting to a better version is my first choice - Radiantenergy (talk)

The main problem with the article is that it suffers from neglect. Errors crept in and remained uncorrected long before Whiteadept started to edit this article. I propose to go back to 03:21, 21 December 2007 Andries (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the above version article copy on Dec 21st 2007 is better than article copy on Jan 5th 2009 version. You can probably give a quick comparison comparing each major section in the above 2 versions. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Citizendium article is a lot better than the Wikipedia aricle, but please do not copy without giving credit to Citizendium. Andries (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

No. We have to look with in wikipedia for a better version. As I said before if nothing works out or we all don't agree on proposal 1 for finding a better version. Then We have to go with the second proposal as the current article breaks all the WP:BLP rules as outlined in the WP:BLP rules for deletion. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Proposal for Deleting the Current Article as it is unreliable and Wikipedia:Libel

If nothing works out. This will be my second choice - Radiantenergy (talk)

A reminder about sources

This is a reminder about sourcing policy. Reliable sources for use in this article must be third-party, secondary or tertiary sources. Robert Priddy must not be used unless published by a reputable journal. Critical websites are also not generally permitted. The official Sathya Sai Organization websites are out of the question. ←Spidern→ 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is for me, too! Is it not? [19] My text:

Looking for an explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikifying

I've found the article in the list of those to be wikified, but I'm not going to wade in without posting here first. Is it possible that some of those who are already actively editing on the page could clean it up a bit as they go along, rather than relying on someone coming new to the article? If that's not possible, then I will help out, but please post here to tell me how you think I should go about it. Remember, wikifying is not just making internal links but also involves improving article structure. I see that there is a criticism section here, and that could be problematic. In many controversial articles, the criticisms are worked in with the rest of the text. But if I start to do that I fear that I will be accused of being a fanatical supporter or zealous opponent of the article subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start wikifying now. We are in the process of making some major decisions related to the article. I am hoping it will be done the coming week. Depending on how it goes then we can think about wikifying Radiantenergy (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Since January 23rd, I have made over a hundred edits to the page. I've paraphrased some direct quotes, worked at some undue weight issues, and cleaned up citations. Reverting to an earlier version will not necessarily solve this article's problems. We should instead address all pending issues in a systematic way, avoiding the loss of improvements which have been made since the 15th of January. Here are some points to consider:

• You'll notice that the three websites you mentioned above are no longer cited in this article. Some were primary sources, others were self-published sources, and yet others were convenience links to independent media. I've removed all Robert Priddy references from the article, which all happened to be self-published sources.
• Undue weight is currently a problem with this article. There is much that can be done about this, such as paraphrasing direct quotes, and introducing alternative sources for more varied sourcing. "The Findings", "Secret Swami", and a few others are mentioned an inordinate number of times, and this should be taken into consideration.
• As for the BLP issues, they are indeed a legitimate concern. Be reminded that if at any point you see a statement which is defamatory and unsupported by a secondary source, you are fully entitled to remove the offending passage from the page.

Since I started editing here, I've been trying to ensure that subsequent changes to the article are supported by policy. If you feel that policy is not being enforced here at any time, feel free to drop me a message on my user talk page, and I'll be glad to try and help resolve the situation. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We will revert back to an older version, possibly much older. I tend to agree that criticism should not be in a special criticism section, though I also think that this can not be fully avoided in this article. I think user:Spidern recently made it worse in this respect by moving critical comments of teachings out of the beliefs and practices sections to the criticm and controversy section. user:Spidern Revision as of 18:43, 27 February 2009 Andries (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

From reading the section, I found it difficult to understand precisely what the beliefs of Sathya Sai Baba's followers actually are. I moved the paragraph in an attempt to allow the section to explain first what the beliefs were before branching into criticism. However, I'm willing to listen to the input of other editors if they disagree. If nobody replies here, you could start a new talk section or even go the route of opening a request for comment seeking further input, while stating your case. In a related matter: there is a difference between criticism and controversy, and we should have respective sections for them instead of lumping them all together. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting to an older version of the page is even going to be an option at this point. There is a certain benefit in having an uninvolved editor make changes to an article. It contributes towards achieving WP:NPOV, a state which the article is certainly not in at the moment. Be bold and feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Keep us posted here and we'll advise along the way. ←Spidern→ 07:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, I totally disagree with your argument. The problem is not going to be solved with just removing a few attack websites. If its that simple or just involved making some edits here and there I would n't have taken so much pain in going for an arbitration enforcement case on User:White_Adept. You don't understand the problem. Please familiarise yourself with all the earlier discussions. I have spent a lot of time reading the earlier discussions and do know how much disruption has been caused to this article. How come if you so strongly support User:White_Adept's changes you never got involved in the arbitration enforcement case?

I believe reverting to a better version is the only step towards solving the disruption caused by User:White_Adept 300+ edits based on unreliable sources. I would suggest you to stop editing the current article trying to fix it. Your reasoning that you don't want to revert because you made 100's of edits is not a sufficient one. If we don't revert we are losing the article which has been maintained all these years and years of other editors contribution as the current version is nowhere close to the older template and is breaking all the rules.

Remember the article is clearly a Wikipedia:Libel. This article will be reverted to a better copy as its breaking all the rules. I don't mind even opening another case and getting other people involved about the current state of the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you point out exactly where the libel is occurring, and attempts will be made to fix it. Please do not make the mistake in thinking that I support White Adept's edits in general, I have cautioned him about improper sourcing from when I first stepped in here. Reverting the page to an earlier version goes against the Wikipedia ethos, and is counterproductive. Libel concerns are a serious matter, and I will do whatever possible to address your concerns. Please point out all instances of improper sourcing, lack of sourcing, or insufficiently neutral tone in the current revision and we will proceed from there. ←Spidern→ 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarities between banned user "wikisunn" and "radiantenergy"

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

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

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

• Your edit(Edit summary:Books on and by Swami Vivekananda ) : [20]

• Wikisunn’s edit(Edit Summary: Added Books on and by Swami vivekananda) : [21]

• Among other similarities I find both of you requesting arbitration help from the same admin[22][23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated Violations

User_talk:White_adept is disrupting this article by violating arbitration rulings again and again. He is adding Robert Priddy references again and again and keeps breaking the second arbitration ruling on Robert Priddy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy. He has made more than 190 ediis to this article from Jan 8th 2009 to Jan 17 2009 based on unreliable sources such as "The Findings by Bailey", Robert Priddy etc. Restructured the Criticism section based on unreliable sources with out discussing on the talk page first . The source "The Findings" has already been discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation its unreliable source as per wikipedia policies and cannot be used in this article. ::RadiantEnergy 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling The Times, The BBC, The Guardian, Danish TV Documentary, American Consulate, Indian Express, The Hindu, Tehelka, BC Skeptics, Premanand etc. all "unreliable sources"? When using 'the findings' for identification of the source's perspective on the topic - what I put forward are not fringe theories but things completely in line with the the mainstream perspective on the subject. The Findings's perspective is very relevant here and not something we can ignore because the whole controversy was sparked in international media by the document - as reliable sources note.

Robert Priddy is a respected professor of philosophy and sociologist and his writings have been used as such in leading Indian skeptical journals such as Premanand's. Anyway - if you look at things from that perspective Narasimha biography etc are all violate WP:RS. But the sources such as "the findings" are being used to identify the perspective of the source on the topic - which indeed is of relevance and well within what wikipedia policies allow us to use. It is more acceptable because it is completely consistent with the mainstream perspective.

White adept (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An earlier post of mine on the issue:

Priddy is a retired University of Oslo, Professor of Philosphy and perhaps a leading expert in the field - based on his exposure and extensive writings - much more so than many of the other sources used in the article - including self-published "biographies" written by devotees etc.

The Findings - is very relevant because of its notability. As Michelle Goldberg points out[24]:

It all started with a document called "The Findings," published in late 2000 by long-term devotees David and Faye Bailey, whose marriage was arranged by Sai Baba. Part of the nearly 20,000-word piece is given over to evidence that Sai Baba fakes his materializations and doesn't magically heal the sick -- revelations that seem self-evident to nonbelievers but provoke fierce debate in devotee circles and blazing headlines in the Indian press.

According to wikipedia "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena." Here the The Findings is much more than that - it is what this international-controversy all started with. So, ofcourse what it states is relevant - its not something you can just cover-up...

Then if we go by what you are saying Haraldsson, self-published sources claiming miracles etc, self-published biography, etc all should be completely expunged first - they absolutely are not even remotely as notable as this work. Strange that you dont have a problem with the "cobra under bedsheet source" but don't want this centrally relevant document to be mentioned.... How come you smoothly ignore and never raise a question about the poorest quality sources - self-published by "sai-devotees"? White adept (talk)

Infact am not against cutting down on robert priddy - but am sure I can source the same stuff to Premanand's journal - a leading journal in India. White adept (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

White adept, Wikipedia is encyclopedia and its not a place for pushing your POV views. It does not matter what you think of Robert Priddy or The Findings by Bailey or Basava Premananda. These sources have been discussed since 2006 first in detail during Mediation by BostonMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation and later during First and Second arbitrations. Its very clear from your arguments that you have n't read any of the earlier mediation discussion related to this article. You cannot adding these sources because you think its reliable that's pushing your POV views.

• Priddy as a Source: Second arbitration passed a ruling on Priddy. They call Robert Priddy sources and related websites as attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy. You have been violating this ruling by repeatedly adding Priddy references again into this article along with other edits.

• "The Finding by Bailey": This source also has been discussed in detail during Mediation By BostonMA and its been called as unreliable source. In the mediation The Findings was called unreliable as it was never published by reputable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation

• Basava Premananda as a Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Premanand_as_a_Source#Indian_Skeptic_as_a_Reputable_Source. This is detailed discussion initiated by BostonMA regarding using Premananda as a source. Neither Premananda's book nor the Indian Skeptic was accepted as a reliable source to this article.

You have been disrupting this article breaking arbitration rules using poorly negative unreliable sources such as Robert Priddy, The Finding by Bailey and Basava Premananda. You have done major changes to the article based on these unreliable sources. Please familiarise yourself with the earlier discussions related to this article. I have provided all the links to the earlier discussions. Please remove these unreliable sources Robert Priddy, The Findings by Baileys and Reference from Basava Premananda from the article.  ::RadiantEnergy 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Case on User:White_Adept for breaching Arb.com rulings and for Repeated Violations

Here is the link to the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings.

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

Results of the Case: The Enforcement commitee has warned User:White_Adept that if he continues to edit war on adding questionable sources then further sanctions would be considered. 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Important decisions about the Sathya Sai Baba article in the coming week

• This is to inform everybody that we will be making a very important decision about the Sathya Sai Baba article in the coming week as the current article is breaking all of the WP:BLP rules.
• All those editors / users who have been involved so far with the article please see the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Sathya_Sai_Baba_-_Breaches_in_the_new_template_.2F_current_version_rewritten_by_User:White_Adept_and_your_feedback and give your feedback to these proposals.
• This is a time to get involved if you are a contributer to this article. Everybody's views on these two proposals will be heard as long as their views conforms to the WP:BLP rules.

Radiantenergy (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

If there really is to be a vote on these issues (by whom?), please take all this into consideration. RadiantEnergy seems to be in an indecent anti-wikipedian hurry to influence the content of the article - as User SSS108 was until he finally received his merited Arb. Com. punishment a couple of years ago.) Ombudswiki (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

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

A very well-justified revert

Spidern, the very well sourced material you blanked out - with no apparent reason - is what I took several painstaking hours to contribute. When you give no reason for blanking out such well sourced material and then you turn around and place the blame on me for not allowing it to be blanked - it is hard for me to appreciate. Not only did your edits end up blanking material from The Hindu, The Indian Express, Lawrence Babb, etc., you also ended up blanking out paragraphs of info from The BBC etc - "trimming" them down to single-line petty misrepresentations of the original source. All with specious edit summaries. Doesn't that border on vandalism? Review your edits here: [25] White adept (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Material cited to the "Findings" deleted, again

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

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

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

It was reintroduced by mistake( un-intentionally ) when restoring other very well sourced material. I had pointed out this was likely and requested that it be pointed out. See my post above. Also a source can be used for identification of its perspective - especially a notable one like this. Anyways am pulling out of this. Leaving this article, I just want to request editors to please not intentionally cover up or water down material from Reliable Sources such as The Times or The BBC as has been done here:[26] - personally I believe there is an ethical aspect to it too. When we cover it up for this person we are as much responsible for the harm inflicted by him to society as well as innocent, unsuspecting people as he himself is. For, if it weren't for people covering up this person's misdeeds - this would have ended much long before. There are possible sock puppets functioning here - a sock of an old banned editor - see what I pointed out in a previous post above. Analysts and critics like Priddy have had a hate and wretched lies propaganda unleashed against them by the cult. Even editors who apparently wanted well sourced criticism to be objectively covered on these pages have not been spared. They have been subject to threats, blackmail and slander ( proof of which am willing to share with admins.) Anyways I just don't think me trying to contribute here is worth my time.

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

RFC - Should excessive quoting be paraphrased and trimmed?

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

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

Involved users

Comment White adept (talk · contribs) classified my bold edits as "vandalism", "page blanking", "petty misrepresentation", and even "sneaky vandalism". He initially performed five reversions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). While every attempt was made to justify my edits as summarization and paraphrasing, he continued to perform mass reverts (6, 7, 8) representing a number of edits which he didn't agree with, describing them in one edit summary as "intentional distortion". BLPN threads were opened by myself [27] and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) [28], which have yet not received a response. What should be done about the state of the article? ←Spidern→ 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Previously uninvolved users

Comment by uninvolved user RegentsPark

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

• Re the "Killings in the Ashram" section, there has also been support at the BLP noticeboard for shortening this section in this article and housing the present material in a separate article: BLP noticeboard thread Jayen466 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Any suggestions what such an article should be named? Jayen466 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Do you mean what the section should be named? --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 01:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppeteers...?

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

Inappropriately sourced material deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not forgotten your answers.

I see that I, Robert Priddy, am referred to above here by RadiantEnergy as being 'banned'. This wrong impression I want to correct. I understand that what is banned is (only) links to my websites on the Sathya Sai Baba page. In my apostasy I wrote about my experiences, and I hold that these are still entirely truly represented in every single respect in my pages. I have also provided massive documentation of many of my assertions, scans of documents and much more. I recommend my websites to anyone interested in learning about the activity of the Sathya Sai Baba cult and those like it. Wikipedian administrators should be aware how they propagate misinformation, exercise censorship and induce mind control through 'teachings'. They exclude all critics and they work through proxies (and sock-puppets?) to remove all information against them from any place they can should go to my Sathya Sai Baba web pages at [29] and my blog at [30] -- ProEdits (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert to earlier version

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

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

I think that the article should be reverted to December 2007 because the version of Jan 5th 2009 contains a mistake in the summary as I have argued again and again here on this talk page and elsewhere (to the arbcom). I am sorry about the effort that user:Spidern spent on improving a version that will probably not be further used. But the current version is flawed; it does not treat The Findings that many reputable sources say is an important document and it gives a one-sided treatment of the organizations.

What bothers is me is that nobody seems to be interested in removing factual mistakes but only in minimizing or maximizing criticism. Andries (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lets revert it to the December 2007 version. I think the current article definitely has problems, issues and is not balanced. Since now we have more editors favoring reverting to earlier version lets do it.

Radiantenergy (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I haven't had more time and energy to devote to the article. If Andries and Radiantenergy are agreed that it would be best to go back to the older version, I would endorse their choice. Jayen466 20:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andries, my point is this article must be written in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Right now the criticism is more than 70% of the whole article. The article still has several unreliable sources. The article still lacks the positive aspects of Sathya Sai Baba's life. I am not saying we need to use these books written by devotees but we can still use other reliable positive material like the list Jossi provided. My point the article is not balanced. For example the link you provided earlier from citizendium Citizendium article is much better and more reliably sourced compared to the current article. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

the second paragraph

This paragraph is a terrible opening and contains information that could be in other sections. The ebassy warnings are no longer relevant as the US Department of State and The website of the American Embassy in Delhi have no current warnings inrelation to sai baba- why is this not listed. No current governmets are taking any action against Sai BABA. THE FACTS IN THIS ITEM ARE INCORRECT. This paragraph should be intergrated to other sections or removed. It is very sloppy and not neautral.

Several allegations including sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround Sathyanarayana Raju.[8][9] A BBC documentary notes that such controversies have persisted for at least 30 years. [10] 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." [10][11] The website of the American Embassy in Delhi, in what they confirm is a direct reference to Sai Baba, [10] warns Americans visiting Andhra Pradesh of a "local religious leader" who reportedly engages in "inappropriate sexual behaviour" with young male devotees. [10] The embassy states "most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens." [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfidel99 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sathya Sai Baba article is a very controversial topic. Please be careful when making edits to this article. Please don't delete any major sections with out discussing with the other editors in the talk page. That's considered as Vandalism in Wikipedia.
• To answer your question about the above mentioned second paragraph. It will probably fit well into the criticism and controversy section.
• I see that you have added new section. Please always provide reference and citation. Also please read through the earlier discussions related to this article it will help you in determining correct reliable sources for this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Reading List for the Study of Sathya Sai Baba (2009)

If you wish to produce a worthwhile balanced article on Sathya Sai Baba, please consider the following sources:

1. Apologetic

a) by Sathya Sai Baba:

Sathya Sai Speaks, Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (http://www.sssbpt.org). A careful study of Volumes I – XII (of a total of 36), bearing in mind that these are translated and heavily edited versions of his frequent Telugu Discourses.

b) by the Sathya Sai Organisation

Chaitanya Jyoti. The Millennium Museum depicting the Message and Mission of Sri Sathya Sai Avatar, Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Organisation, 2001.

b) by others: Fanibunda, Eruch B., Vision of the Divine, Bombay, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications, 1976.

Ganapati, Ra.Baba: Satya Sai, Parts I and II, Madras, Divya Vidya Trust, 1984-1985. [Adapted from earlier versions in Tamil]

Gokak, V. K., Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. The Man and the Avatar. An Interpretation, New Delhi, Abhinav, 1975.

Haraldsson, Erlendur, ‘Miracles Are My Visiting Cards’. An Investigative Report on the Psychic Phenomena Associated with Sathya Sai Baba, London, Century Paperbacks, 1987. [One of the best known general books on Sathya Sai Baba, by a non-devotee visiting parapsychologist. The book is often erroneously regarded and quoted by devotees as a scientific endorsement of Sathya Sai Baba’s materialisations. There is a 1997 enlarged edition.]

Hislop, John 1978: Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba, San Diego, Birth Day. 1985: My Baba and I, San Diego, Birth Day.

Karanjia, R. K., 1994: God Lives in India, Puttaparthi, Saindra. [The 1976 Blitz articles and other shorter ones from the same year]

Kasturi, N[arayan] 1961-1980: Sathyam Sivam Sundaram. The Life of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 4 vols., Prasanthi Nilayam, Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications, 1961-1980.

Murphet, Howard, Sai Baba: Man of Miracles, London and New Delhi, 1971. [Reprinted by Samuel Weiser, York Beach, 1973 and subsequently]

Padmanaban, R. et al , Love is My Form. Vol. 1 The Advent (1926-1950). Prasanthi Nilayam, Sai Towers, 2000. [Contains new information. Often referred to as LIMF. Written by a team of devotees headed by a successful Puttaparthi publisher of Sathya Sai Baba books (and ex-photographer of SSB). The projected volumes 2-6 were abruptly cancelled in 2002.]

Ruhela, S. P.: 1976: Sai Baba and His Message, New Delhi, Vikas, 1976. [rev. ed., 1995, New Delhi, Vikas]. 1997: Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Press (1972-1996), New Delhi, UMANG Paperbacks. [The only collection of critical (and a few other) Indian press articles and summaries to date. The bulk of the articles are from the period 1976-1996.]

Sandweiss, Samuel H., SAI BABA. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist, San Diego, Birth Day. Schulman, Arnold, Baba, New York, Viking Press, 1971. [An early independent view by a non-devotee]

Steel, Brian (ed.), The Sathya Sai Baba Compendium. A Guide to the First Seventy Years, York Beach, Samuel Weiser, 1997. (A devotee act of seva (service) – parts of which, as an ex-devotee, the author now disowns. An alphabetical reference work on 300 topics (many of a factual background nature, for non-Hindus) relating to the life and teachings of Sathya Sai Baba as presented by him and his major commentators in English.)

Vijayakumari, Smt., Anyatha Saranam Nasthi. Other than You Refuge is There None, Chennai, [n.p.], 1999. [Available from Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust]

2. Academic

Babb, Lawrence A.: [The doyen of academic research on Sathya Sai Baba]

1983: ‘Sathya Sai Baba’s Magic’, Anthropological Quarterly, 56, 116-123. 1986a: Redemptive Encounters. Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, Berkeley, University of California. 1986b: ‘The Puzzle of Religious Modernity’, in India: 2000. The Next Fifteen Years, ed. James R. Roach, Riverdale, Maryland, [n.p.], and New Delhi, Allied Publishers, pp. 55-79.

Beyerstein, Dale, 1992-3: Published in instalments in Indian Skeptic, Vol 5, No 7 (November 1992) - Vol 6, No. 3 (July 1993). 1994: Sai Baba’s Miracles. An Overview, Podanur, India (c125 pages). Available online: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba Christopher, Milbourne, Search for the Soul, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell, 1979, pp. 114-116 [and pp. 104-113].

Hummel, Reinhart 1985a: ‘Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba’, New Religious Movements, 9, No. 3, September 1985, pp. 8-19. [See also http://www.dci.dk/en/?article=572&emne= (from the Dialog Center in Denmark)]

(The) Indian Skeptic, Vols 1-2, 1988-1989, http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html

Kent, Alexandra, 2005: Divinity and Diversity: A Hindu Revitalization Movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen, NIAS Press. [Nordic Institute for Asian Studies]

Klass, Morton, Singing with Sai Baba. The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1991.

Lane, David Christopher,http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/dlane/saidebates.htm

Mangalwadi, Vishal, The World of Gurus, 2nd ed., New Delhi, Nivedit, 1987. [1977, Vikas]

Palmer, Norris W., ‘Baba’s World: A Global Guru and His Movement’, in Gurus in America, ed. Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes, Albany, SUNY Press, 2005, 97-122.

Spurr, Michael J., ‘Visiting-Cards Revisited: An Account of Some Recent First-Hand Observations of the ‘Miracles’ of SSB; The Role of the Miraculous’, Journal of Religion and Psychical Studies, 26, 2003, 198-216.

Srinivas, Smriti, In the Presence of Sai Baba. Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement, Brill, Leiden & Boston, 2008. [an academic sympathiser]

Urban, Hugh B., ‘Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism’, Religion, 33 (73-93), 2003.

White, Charles S.J., ‘The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of Indian Saints’, Journal of Asian Studies, XXXI, No. 4 (August 1972), 863-878. [Reprinted in Ruhela and Robinson (eds.), Sai Baba and His Message, 1976, pp. 40-66.] This is the oldest Western scholarly article.

3. Critical

Bailey, David and Faye, The Findings, Conwy, North Wales: private publication, 2000. (See also http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/findings.html, www.saiguru.net and http://saibaba-invigilator.blogspot.com) The single most influential stimulus to the critical research, protest and lobbying undertaken over the past eight years. Written by two very prominent ex-devotees, it presents allegations of sexual abuse and of faked materialisations by Sathya Sai Baba.

BBC TV, Secret Swami, 17 June 2004. Channel 2 series, This World. Director / Producer: Eamon Hardy.

Brooke, Tal c1976 / 1979: Sai Baba. Lord of the Air, Delhi, Vikas. And various other versions of the same story, including: 1984: Avatar of Night. The Hidden Side of Sai Baba, New Delhi, Tarang Paperbacks. 1990: Lord of the Air. Tales of a Modern Antichrist, New York, Harvest House. 2000: Avatar of Night. Special Millennial Edition, Berkeley, CA, End Run Publishing.

Brown, Mick 1998: The Spiritual Tourist. A Personal Odyssey through the Outer Reaches of Belief, London, Bloomsbury. (See especially pp. 25-94.)

Conway, Timothy, ‘My Concerns about Sathya Sai Baba’: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba_my_concerns.html, 2006.

Falk, Geoffrey D., Stripping the Gurus. Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment, e-book, http://www.strippingthegurus.com, 2005. See Chapter IX, ‘Scorpion Man (Satya Sai Baba)’, pp. 70-75.

Gogineni, Babu R. R., ‘Sex, Lies and Videotape’, http://www.iheu.org, 1996.

Goldberg, Michelle , ‘Untouchable?’, www. salon.com, 25 July, 2001. http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/07/25/baba/index.html

The Indian Skeptic, www.indian-skeptic.org/html [See also Premanand, B. and the 10-year Index (1988-1998), ed. B. Premanand, Podanur, 1999.]

Nagel, Alexandra H. M. 2001a (August): 'A Guru Accused. Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile', at http://www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net. An early detailed commentary on the sexual allegations of 2000. See D. Bailey above. 2001b: 'For and Against Sathya Sai Baba on the Internet', on www.exbaba.com Another useful early account of the new burst of critical activity in the late 1990s and, in particular, 2000. The bibliographical references are valuable.

Premanand, B. [= Basava] (Premanand is the President of the Indian Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), an indefatigable public speaker, and an expert magician. He succeeded Dr. Kovoor in this position and has been Sathya Sai Baba ’s principal critic and implacable debunker in India for over three decades. His energetic and wide-ranging criticisms of Sathya Sai Baba have only recently begun to be seriously examined by Westerners.)

1988-1989: (The) Indian Skeptic, Vols 1-2, 1988-1989. See http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html (or the 10 Year Index) for details of a lengthy correspondence on Sathya Sai Baba between Premanand and the academic, Professor Erlendur Haraldsson. These volumes of the journal also contain some related correspondence from Professor Beyerstein to Haraldsson. 1990- Many articles in The Indian Skeptic. 1994: Science versus Miracles, Vol. 1, Podanur, Indian CSICOP. The prominent Indian Rationalist, who has given many public demonstrations to Indian audiences, offers instructions on how to perform a large number of ‘miracles’ that are not uncommon in India. He devotes a whole chapter to ‘Satya Sai Baba’s Miracles’ (pp. 58-64). 2001: Murders in Sai Baba’s Bedroom, Podanur, Indian CSICOP. See also: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.html

Priddy, Robert, End of the Dream. The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma, Podanur, India, 2004. (A retired academic and ex-devotee and ex-Sathya Sai Organisation official, Priddy is the most outspoken and by far the most prolific and persistent of the post-2000 group of critics of Sathya Sai Baba and the SSO, collectively known as ‘The Exposé’.)

Randi, James (A famous American magician, rationalist and dedicated debunker of occult and supernatural claims.) 1995a: The Supernatural A-Z. The Truth and the Lies, London, Headline. On p. 270: two paragraphs on Sathya Sai Baba’s claimed miracles and materialisations including Randi’s conclusion as a qualified magician that “… examination of films and videotapes of Sathya Sai Baba's actual performances show them to be simple sleight-of-hand ...” Randi’s website is http://www.randi.org. See especially his commentary for 8 December 2000 and the Newsletters for 3 May 2002, and 13 July 2003.

Shepherd, Kevin R.D., Investigating the Sai Baba Movement. A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism, Dorset, Citizen Initiative, 2005.

4. On Shirdi Sai Baba

Rigopoulos, Antonio, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi, New York, State University of New York Press, 1993.

Shepherd, Kevin R.D., Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, Cambridge, Anthropographia Publications, 1986.

Warren, Marianne, Unravelling the Enigma. Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism, New Delhi, Sterling, 1999. Revised edition, 2004. ISBN 81 207 2147 0.

References to Sathya Sai Baba on “anti-cult” and cult study websites

Apologetics Index, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s11.html F.A.C.T. Net, www.factnet.org/cults/Sai_Baba/Bhagavan_Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba.htm

Freedom of Mind Center (Steven Hassan), www.freedomofmind.com/reseourcecenter/groups/s/sathya

I.C.S.A. (International Cultic Studies Association) http://www.icsahome.com

I.N.F.O.R.M. [Information Network Focus on Religious Movements], London, ‘About Sathya Sai Baba’]. (See http://www.inform.ac.)

The Rick A. Ross Institute, http://www.rickross.com/groups/saibaba.html

Note: For many more references and annotations, see: Brian Steel, 'An Annotated Bibliography for Research on Sathya Sai Baba in Three Parts': http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_links/saibababibliography.htm

Ombudswiki (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Section title should be "Killings in the ashram", not deaths in the ashram

People were killed. They did not die of old age. Deaths in the ashram happen very often and are not notable because the ashram is very large. Please remove the vague euphemism. Andries (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Recomended sources for theological discussion of Sai Baba movement

• Ramstedt, Martin (2004). Hinduism in modern Indonesia: A Minority Religion Between Local, National, and Global Interests. London: Routledge. p. 267. ISBN 0-7007-1533-9.
• Howe, Leo (2005). The Changing World of Bali: Religion, Society and Tourism. New York: Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 0-415-36497-3.
• Klass, Morton (1995). Ordered Universes: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-8133-121. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

←Spidern→ 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

The neutrality of this article is in question, as it seems biased toward different sides, depending on which section one is reading. Weasal words such as possibly, apparently, claims etc, need to be replaced. There is some unreferenced material that should be referenced or removed (citation needed tag). Almost every section under "Criticism and controversy" has some POV, weasel words or unreferenced material. Added the templates so you all know where to start next. Thanks, Ono (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to revert the current article to a better version from Involved Editors

There has been discussion about reverting to a better version of the article in the past couple of weeks as the current article breaks many Italic textof theWP:BLP rules. We have decided to revert to the December 2007 version as it uses more reliable sources.
Consensus from Involved Editors:

• User:Andries: Agreed to revert the article.
• User:Radiantenergy: Agreed to revert the article
• User:Jayen466: Agreed to revert the article
• User:Spidern:Disagreed
• User:White adept:Disagreed.

Since the majority of the involved editors have agreed to revert to a better version I will be reverting the article to the December 2007 version.

Radiantenergy (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did User:Jayen466 agree? Further, you, it seems quite clear, are a mere sock. Also I dont see any clear consensus for revert from Andries. Also see statement from User:Ombudswiki] below which clearly shows the consensus is not in favour of any such revert.

White adept (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article was reverted only after consensus from Andries and Jayen.

The following was Andries comments:

I think that the article should be reverted to December 2007 because the version of Jan 5th 2009 contains a mistake in the summary as I have argued again and again here on this talk page and elsewhere (to the arbcom). I am sorry about the effort that user:Spidern spent on improving a version that will probably not be further used. But the current version is flawed; it does not treat The Findings that many reputable sources say is an important document and it gives a one-sided treatment of the organizations.

What bothers is me is that nobody seems to be interested in removing factual mistakes but only in minimizing or maximizing criticism. Andries (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The following were Jayen's comments:

I am sorry I haven't had more time and energy to devote to the article. If Andries and Radiantenergy are agreed that it would be best to go back to the older version, I would endorse their choice. Jayen466 20:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Revert_to_earlier_version. Also As I said before if you continue to accuse me as a Sock I will start the harassment and incivility case on you. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, in your edit summary you stated that there were BLP violations with the prior revision. What are these outstanding BLP concerns on the last revision? ←Spidern→ 01:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, I had added a detailed discussion about these WP:BLP issuess even before in this same talk page. I do appreciate your bold edits and the improvement effort you undertook to improve the previous version of the article. But again that article still suffered with inaccuracies from unreliable sources and with WP:Undue criticism. Also I would like to point out that decision to revert was based on consensus from all the 3 editors. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, I realize that a consensus was reached before you made your edit, but you stated in your edit summary that it was done due to WP:BLP concerns. I am not sure which ones specifically that you were referring to, because I thought that I had addressed direct points which you brought up before. Also, the current revision makes considerable use of primary sources which are also under scrutiny for use here. By reverting, you restored much of this unreliable sourcing, which was my main reason for opposing it to begin with. ←Spidern→ 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the version of December 2007 contains weakly sourced material critical of SSB. Some of the responses to criticisms in that version are weakly sourced. Again, I am sorry for the effort you put in a version that will probably not be used further, but the Dec. 2007 version contains critical material of which every word has been discussed and weighted. The version that you tried to improve did not come close to that. Andries (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this version contains some material sourced to primary sources. (Some of which completely unnecessary sourced to primary sources) Andries (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spidern, Are you referencing to the source "Narayana Kassturi" - when talking about the use of primary sources? When I was reading through the BostonMA mediation section I came across a whole section discussing whether to use Kasturi as a source. I will search and sent you the link. We can have more discussions related to that. 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"... the Dec. 2007 version contains critical material of which every word has been discussed and weighted." (stated by Andries, above)

As many readers will see, that ludicrous editorial claim further exposes the muddled grasp of the topic and the factual ignorance of the three Users (the triumvirate of Radiantenergy, Andries and Jayen466) who have sponsored this substandard version of the Sathya Sai Baba story (which, in addition to what it does not tell the reader, shows some interesting errors and contradictions caused by insufficient attention to the important biographical source Love is My Form). BTW, the English style of this version is poor.

Congratulations to White adept for at least trying to introduce some more facts into this unbalanced (and still low quality) article. Commiserations to him also for the many valid paragraphs (of his hard work) which have now been hidden under the carpet (temporarily?) by these three over-zealous domineering sweepers ("the majority of the involved editors"!) along with the more debatable points and those which do not fit in with Wikipedia's arcane system. However, some 'reputable' references and writings, like those of Professor Dale Beyerstein, have now been inserted into the Sathya Sai Baba Archive for researchers to consult, and some glimpses of the BBC documentary Secret Swami have been offered.

It is to be hoped that other more open-minded Users may eventually be attracted to the task of "researching" (the r-word!) this important controversial subject.

Ombudswiki (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a single version of this article uses Love is My form Feel free to improve the article using that source. Feel free to insert more of the BBC documentary. Please stop the senseless fence sitting.

On second thoughts, the biggest weakness of the Dec. 2007 version that it goes too much in details that are only interesting for (ex-)devotees. It should try to put things more in context and try to offer an overview. Andries (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to editors. Watch out for promo material being added by people like "radiantenergy" - who very likely is a sock of a banned user. Every day they manage to cover things up with self published propaganda is a day this man and his henchmen clowns make more money. So they'll resort to any no-good low-down trick for it. They function like the mafia - they pay money to the locals - make them financially dependent on them, buy out the local police, and creates a cover of "service" (by advertising dysfunctional projects undertaken for their own benefit and to promote baba-worship-tourism to their place) to bring in more money from unsuspecting people. Look at the extent of propaganda and advertisement they have been doing here on wikipedia. I think it is time we made clear to them that this is an encyclopaedia - not a place for their cheap propaganda. Note that the last edit by radiantenergy essentially cleared out all sourced information, all pictures, videos etc. I request editors here to please not allow such cover-up of content. White adept (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To Andries: From your favourite 2007 version:

“Sathya Sai Baba is listed in the 1942 school record of Bukkapatnam.” (Check that Note.)

It is not worth taking up your invitation to write anything here since it can be torn down by vandals or partisans at any minute. You yourself, abetted by just two others, vapourised 14 months of other people’s hard work (and filibustering) yesterday! I notice the recent version is back again today. But tomorrow? And the next day? Meanwhile, while people like you play your verbose games in pursuit of Wiki points and renown, the old version that you have foisted on readers remains incomplete and unbalanced.

What I do propose to do, from my privileged vantage point (rather than an uncomfortable fence) is to continue, until quality improves, to point out -- from time to time -- the sort of shortcomings that plague this article (as a piece of public information) and the inexplicable and stubborn failure by some contributors, including you (alas!), to study and incorporate information from important sources.

(Did you ever make a direct reference and hyperlink to Professor Beyerstein? Have you read his e-book? The newcomer on the block, White adept, obviously has, and he has shared the relevant (and reputable) information with interested readers.)

Ciao for now. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had read Dale Beyerstein's ebook and yes, I had used it long time ago for this article with a direct reference, but it was removed long time ago because not considered a repubale source. If you think that Dale Beyerstein study is a reliable source then I suggest you ask for comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Andries (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I dare you to tell Professor Beyerstein that his writing is not reputable, Andries! You have obviously NOT read the 100 pages carefully, OR you have allowed yourself to be browbeaten by other 'wikicrats' who have not read the book. However, to atone for your sins of omission, you would be better employed reading (carefully) through the list of materials in the following section and composing more reliable articles both on Wikipedia and Citizendium.

Ombudswiki (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

hello Ombuswiki, I had read Dale Beyerstein's study and I think it is a good one, but reputability in Wikipedia is not so much determined by the contents of the sources, but more by the question where and how it was published. This is just one instance where the strict applications of policies and guidelines on this article leads to a result that contradict common sense. Andries (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is just one instance where the strict application of policies and guidelines on this article leads to a result that contradict[+s] common sense."

What a gem! Thank you for that admirable indictment of some of the Wikipedia principles, Andries. I will quote you on this. Now it's time for you to get back to that lengthy required reading list! It may mean you have less time for notching up these little edits, of which you seem so inordinately fond, but it will be for the good of the article and your own reputation. Happy reading! I'll pop back in a few months to see if you've managed to improve the article. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Special page for excerpts of proposed sources

I created Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. Feel free to add. (You can find a lot in the archives or the history of this article). Andries (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why this substandard Wikipedia article needs very special attention from the Executive Body

Three hitherto intractable problems are largely responsible for this perennially inferior article, with its history of instability, endless and sometimes impassioned edit wars, bureaucratic filibustering on the Discussion Page and prolonged Arb. Com proceedings. The Sathya Sai Baba article is, and always has been, a very bad advertisement for Wikipedia.

Problem 1.

Wikipedia’s basic principles of anonymous access and intervention by anyone, regardless of their capacity to contribute usefully, or their motivation.

Problem 2.

The basic ignorance at the root of many contributors’ and admin interventions. For example, this “gem” has been sitting on the “to-do list” of some admin person on the Discussion page for about 2 years. “Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done) Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order).”

[That bleat about the $99 cost - and the 2 year wait - is particularly pathetic in an encyclopedia. Try a Library or a Sathya Sai Baba Centre! Failing that, why not read available references to some of the interesting contents of both books on the Internet, and then check them against the text of the books themselves?]

To spell it out for anyone who doesn’t get this simple point: these are two absolutely basic texts and reputable sources, which (along with others equally ignored and probably not even known about by Wikipedia’s so-called Sathya Sai Baba experts), should have been consulted from the beginning for an up to date and balanced picture. (Even the favourable presentation of Sathya Sai Baba is inadequate!)

Equally unusual in a purported factual article, the Bibliography list offered (by the Arb Com, I think) is woefully inadequate – and is no longer even listed on the same page as this text, for those readers with the healthy curiosity of checking information sources for themselves. (How many readers will take the trouble to click on the two Bibliographical links?)

Problem 3.

The interference of unhelpful propagandists and trolls, like the one who, not many days ago, contributed this anonymous rant to the latest seesawing edit war when he or she replaced (for a few hours) the whole article with a half page partisan advertisement for Sathya Sai Baba, which reveals far more than (s)he may have intended and which must be yet another Wikipedia-sourced embarrassment to the Sathya Sai Organisation:

“The way this page is treated as a dumping ground for personal attackes on Sai baba instead of a proper bio- shows the limitations of wikipedia –you people who addind this crap are sick –get a life- just factual information for people to read.Sai baba has performed miracles most common -vibutu

In at least on hour this article be returned to hate page Do you feel power by writing untrue stories accusing a guru of sex and murder –you should be ashamed you perverts.

We have an army of fair people who rewrite the page each time you sicos invested with your poison.”

As a first step, Wikipedia should try to devise a means of weeding out ‘fair people’ of this sort. Requiring Users to give a real name, or their email address, instead of a cowardly pseudonym, should be on the next agenda for Wikipedia’s senior executives, who by now must have heard of this egregious case. Other remedial steps must be left to their collective wisdom.

Ombudswiki (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Evidence from Sathya Sai Baba History page:

• (cur) (prev) 17:32, 9 March 2009 Bob bobato (talk | contribs) (56,794 bytes) (Reverted un-encyclopedic vandalism of article. Mrfidel99 , if you want to protect the page, getting rid of the article wont help you any.) (undo) • (cur) (prev) 17:29, 9 March 2009 Bob bobato (talk | contribs) (empty) (Undid revision 276017792 by Mrfidel99 (talk)) (undo)

Ombudswiki (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that years of edits have shown this article has not been helped by anon contributors and contributors new to Wikipedia. This article needs permanent protection. Andries (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit is evidence of what exactly?bob bobato (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permanent protection?

I agree with Ombudswiki that one of the reasons why this article has made little and deteriorated is because of the many anon accounts and throw away accounts who made bad edits. Shall I request permanent protection? Andries (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. Please go ahead with the request. I am also of the opinion a permanent semi protect would be of immense help in improving the quality of the article. There is constant washing away of info and addition of propaganda from anonymous IPs. White adept (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let know your opinion

I think a lot of info has been lost - some through good faith edits and some through IP vandalism - in the current version. This I think, is the reason behind all these tags. I'd like to get consensus from established users on which version they find is better:

• The one now.
• Before changes in January
• The version on March 4th. With almost all information intact. [31]
• A highly summarized version of the March 4th page[32]

White adept (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion, is The March 4th version - with any weak sources removed and further substanitated with sources such as The Vancouver Sun article would be the best. Please voice your opinions below. If there is a clear consensus then we can revert back to that version. White adept (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the March 4th version. I notice a substantial drop in POV statements and weasel words. That being said, I still see some. So a good copy edit would be called for after the revert. Thanks, Ono (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Andries, Ombudskwiki and other editors too .. please let know your opinions on this. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know knothing about this man, but it is hard to believe he is the bad person the page depicts him as, for me the page is 90% critical, I suggest the critics have their say of about 25%. The article should not be about attacking this man. It seems their is some sort of vendeta here. Tommyxx (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

First arbitration rulings

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

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

2) Content in biographies of living persons

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

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

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

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

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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

5) Critical information in biographies of living persons

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

6) Removal of poorly sourced negative material

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

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

Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals

1) Finding of Facts :

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

2) Rulings on NPOV and sources:

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

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

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

3) Proposals: .

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

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

Second arbitration rulings on using Robert Priddy as a source

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

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

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

RadiantEnergy 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Although RadiantEnergy seems blissfully unaware of the fact, the title of Priddy's second book is clumsily misquoted in the above-mentioned Arb. Committee ruling. Their disparaging reference to Library holdings may therefore also be unreliable. The exact title is quoted in the Wikipedia article on 'Robert C. Priddy' as: End of the Dream: the Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. Collected Articles of Robert Priddy. Podanur, Tamilnadu: Premanand, B., 2004, 594 pages; Series: Skeptic Book Club No. 19.Ombudswiki (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Remedies from the Second Arbitration:

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

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

Sources related to the article discussed in BostonMA Mediation Discussions:

• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Premanand as a Source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Salon.com as a Source
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites
• User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Reporting Unsourced Stories

Radiantenergy (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)