Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Sathya Sai Baba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Suggestions on Merging of Miracle Sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you for the source references...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the beginning, J929 wrote:

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

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

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

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

"Controversy surrounds Sai Baba"

and

"Sai Baba is a controversial..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merriam Webster gives these definitions:

1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious

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

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

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

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

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

dear onopearls,

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

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

please elaborate on your new stance.

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

i have disproven your last BBC statement. agreed?

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

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

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

dear bhijami,

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

do we agree?

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

J929:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

please address this concern first!!

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

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

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

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

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

Radiantenergy:

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

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

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

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

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

1 : of, relating to, or arousing controversy

2 : given to controversy : disputatious"

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

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

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

dear onopearls,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"proper english"?

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

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

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

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

please address the annotation topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word controversial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds good.

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

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

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

Move sentence to new section

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

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

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

Hi J929,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your time!

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

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

Raising Of Funds

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

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

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

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

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

Issues with this Section - 'Raising Of Funds':

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secret Swami and Dale Beyerstein: Other Important Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healings.

Claimed omniscience (with documented counter-evidence).

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

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

Criticisms by Basava Premanand.

The materialisation of Shiva lingams as an annual ashram spectacle.

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

Mediation

It's come to my attention that mediation might be useful for a number of the disputes that are active on this page. I'm a member of the Mediation Committee and I'd be glad to act as a neutral mediator here. We could do it officially (through medcom) or unofficially here. Let me know your thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take into account that this article has already been mediated once, years ago. I am afraid that the new mediation would deal with more or less the same disputes, as in the previous mediation. Andries (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

any neutral advice on pertanent or relevant wikipedia policies in the "state of editors" section of this discussion page is welcome.

J929 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Audio Sample

i'd like to suggest having an audio sample of Sai Baba on the page. Considering he is called an 'orator', it would make sense for consistancy to have a snippit of him giving a discourse (or singing a bhajan or saying a mantra, ie Om Nama Shivaya etc...). Preferable something with his voice alone, ie no interpretters. How does this sound?
Any suggestions for a what to use is welcome. (i know there were problems using video but audio may allow for an expansion of the aricle)
Thanks!

J929 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't foresee any issue. You had mentioned above that its not going to be followed by any kind of interpretation or point of view so it should be ok. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement on Dilip Rajeev

Anyone interested should comment here[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.238.147 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Credentials of Love is My Form (LIMF)

User J929 has asked (in the article itself) who the researchers were. I have removed that query and offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest and for other contributors to see. I copy below pages x and xi of the Introduction, the list of those involved in this large 6-volume project (which was never completed, for reasons which remain unclear) and the relevant Acknowledgments page. As readers will see, many devotees, some known, others less so, were involved in different ways with this major research project and in the publication of Volume 1.

LIMFis a 600-page large format hagiography of Sathya Sai Baba but one with a huge amount of new information (and a treasure trove - in its literal meaning - of early photographs, mainly from 1944 to 1950) not contained in Kasturi's first volume of Sathyam Sivam Sundaram, which has been a major source for most writers. All that remains now is for contributors to track down copies of LIMFand use them for their contributions to this article.

LOVE IS MY FORM. VOLUME ONE. The Advent (1926 -1950)

TEAM

PRINCIPAL RESEARCHER AND AUTHOR R. Padmanaban

GENERAL Editor Dr. Paul Izuka

EXECUTIVE EDITORS Professor 0. P Vidyakar, Chris Parnell, Barry Pittard, S. Sai Dasa Sarvesh Kaul, S. Praneeth Reddy

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Peggy Gillian Wood, Susan Caffery Professor B. Krishnamurthy, Diane Ness

ADVISORY TEAM the late V. K. Narasimhan Sudhir Ramachandran Phyllis Krystal B. S. Rajaram Peter Rae

DESIGN TEAM S. Praneeth Reddy in collaboration with Saritha Krishnamoorthy N. Shakuntala

ILLUSTRATIONS Martina de Pater Ebby Inc. M. B. Suresh Kumar

RESEARCH TEAM K V. Chalapathi, A. Gangadhri Bh. Vijayakumar, N. Rajashekar B. Prasanth, R Shankara K. V. Padmaja, K. V. Srilatha D. Rajendran, B S. K. Chakrovarthy

SUPPORT TEAM G. Muthukrishnan, Jaishree Jeevan Kumar, K. R. Mohan Kumar Jolly M. Joseph, Anand Babu

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, and foremost, I express my deep gratitude to Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba for abundant love and grace; and for keeping me away from His physical form during these gruelling years of working on the book. I was able to complete this book as a Sadhana in my spiritual journey.

In giving form to this volume I have inherited a large family, all those who contributed to the book being part of it. I sincerely hope that, down the remaining volumes in the series, I will soon be the proud part of a world family. I reserve special thanks for some important 'relatives', with many more acknowledgements mentioned at the end of the book. Any omission is purely unintentional and pleads to be excused.

I reserve my special gratitude for my mother, Bhagyam for her overwhelming love; my dear wife Ranjini, for her care, love, strength of character and helpful suggestions—and my young son, Sai Karthik who was always supporting and understanding of my absence, even though he really had no idea what I was doing I appreciate my father-in-law and friend, S. Jayakumar for being a pillar of strength and encouragement especially during the many dark periods over the last seven years. Many thanks to my friend, General Editor Dr. Paul Izuka for being a confidant, counselor, guide and the backbone of my spiritual support throughout the project.

I extend my gratitude to the editorial team who blended personal commitment with efficiency to bring reason into the huge stacks of poorly organised material. Special thanks in this regard to O. P. Vidyakar, Barry Pittard and Chris Parnell. I hold in high esteem the good words of advice I received from so many¬induding the late V. K. Narasimhan, Phyllis Krystal, Professor (Mrs) Zeba Bashiruddin, Sudhir Ramachandran, B. S. Rajaram, Brother Moortee and Peter Rae. A special note of thanks goes to Martina de Pater of Holland, who gave form to her love through her beautiful drawings of Baba's childhood. I am grateful in a personal manner to Saritha Krishnamoorthy, N. Shakuntala, and S. Praneeth Reddy, who worked on the book with great love and personal commitment. I reserve my special affection for them. I wish to acknowledge Karnam Kamalamma for writing an intimate Foreword and Dr. R. S. Padmanabhan for his inspiring Introduction to this volume. Great organisations too stood by me. Many thanks to Universal Print Systems, Bangalore and Tien Wah Press, Singapore for standing in for me for a quality project.

Extraordinary friends like Leif Heilberg, Brijmohan Lal Munjal and Isaac Burton Tigrett through their dedicated work ethic, have actually demonstrated Baba's adage Work is Worship'. Friends Gary Belz, James Ong and Anil Ramdath were strong pillars of strength and support. I thank them all. To those other friends, who suffered from my neglect all through the project, my heartfelt regrets. I still love you.

A special place in my heart is reserved for all Sai devotees who contributed their collections. Their trust in me and their confidence in the project have moved me greatly. Many of them went through repetative interviews to provide important details—especially Ratnakaram ICrishnama Raju, Shantha Krishnamurthy, Goddumarri Narasimha Dass, Madanagopal Krishna Yachendra, R. Balapattabi and Talipineni Kesappa.

The royal families of Sandur, Chincholi and Venkatagiri received me in friendship and understanding. To them I extend my deepest respect and gratitude; their love and concern is reflective of their intense devotion to Bhagawan.

Love Is My Form became a way of life for everyone at Sal Towers. I thank K ShivaKumar and P. Premraj for their exceptional tolerance and patience when they were overburdened with extra work, due to my involvement in this project.

Colleagues at Sai Towers Publishing are great human beings It has been a pleasure to work with these dedicated souls. My thanks again, to all of you.

I do not know how to thank Bhagawan for giving me such an experience. I love Him; I thirst for His love; I pray for His Grace and Blessings to complete the remaining volumes.

R. Padmanaban Prasanthi Nilayam Ombudswiki (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no need for remarks pertaining to putting anyone's "mind at rest." please stick to the topic.

J929 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Fortunately, after 8 years of inaction on the biography, there is ample contemporary information (about the original publishing plans, contents, how to subscribe to the series, etc.), still available online at one of Sai Towers' websites: [6]. I will add a reference to this important evidence in the body of the article. Ombudswiki (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i find the addition of this paragraph 'suspicious' as it seems to be growing and swelling out of proportion to what it seems to be saying, that there are discrepensies in the biographical information on Sathya Sai Baba. If that is what you are saying, ombudswiki, say it. As it is, i feel the topic of this addition is already discussed in the previous paragraph.

There are discrepsensies in the descriptions of the book, ie. 6 additional books. in http://saitowers.com/limf/aboutthebook.htm it says the work may be in seven to nine volumes. http://saitowers.com/limf/introduction.htm

the series may or may not be discontinued as the page http://saitowers.com/limf/current.htm states they (the author and others) have additional information for the years 1950 to 1970. which is discredits the view that the series has been discontinued, it may be on hiatus or being reconsidered on how the author wants to present the new material, etc etc etc...

"This 600-page volume dealt in great detail with the early years 1926-1950 and, although it relied heavily on Volume 1 of Kasturi's biography, " is type of unnecassary swelling out of information that i was refering to. Is it talking about the book or events in Sai Baba's life?

"The 600 pages of LIMF also offers a large number of valuable early photographs, mainly from 1944 to 1950" seems like an ad. not an event.

i dont feel books should be talked about as much as the life of Sathya Sai Baba, which constitutes a Biography.

Perhaps moving the paragraph a more appropraite section may be beneficial. The events are more important than the book keeping of persons in a village of remote India some 80 years ago. (which also is reflected in the Christian view of the exact time Jesus was born. 3BC or 0AD?) The Popemobile will not miss a bump because Bethlehem's books were off) If it is a criticism, then the paragraph should be moved to that section.

i would also to note the author of ( http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/fuzzy-dates-in-the-official-biography-of-sathya-sai-baba-a-re-examination/ and http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ssbfuzzydates.htm ) a vocal webpage with Anti Sai Baba views also lays alot of emphesis on "Love is My Form" and the discrpensies in dates.

it may be a good idea to bring agendas into the open.

J929 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite this filibustering and reference to external sources, the Credentials of LIMF are clear. Love is My Form is a major biography of Sathya Sai Baba, which has so far been neglected in this Wikipedia article. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

beliefs and practices of devotees may be more suitable as place for the description of the book as the author does state in http://saitowers.com/limf/authornote.htm that writing the book was his meditation, darshan etc... so it seems to be form of devotional work.

J929 (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Love is My Form is clearly a biography. That is why it belongs in the section on Biography. Re-read the Credentials. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole controversy about birthdate discrepancy based on birth certificate from school records just sounds ridiculous. Here's why?
Using fake birth certificate for school admissions is not an uncommon practice in India. I came across an article from Times of India about how 6,900 students showed fake birth certificate to appear for exams. This has happened as recently as 2004. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Patna/6900-students-showed-fake-birth-certificate-to-appear-for-exams/articleshow/700906.cms.
The above discussion from The Times article shows that even today people use fake birth certificates for what ever reason for School admissions in India.
Also as per Kasturi's biography Sathya Sai Baba was born at his rural home which means there is no official hospital birth certificate record either. This book's discrepancy discussion about determining Sathya Sai Baba's age just based on a record from a rural school in India where he probably studied 68 years ago sounds to me like a wild goose chase?. I think if a source sounds very questionable and suspicious its better not to use it as a reliable source. If this discussion continues then we may have to take this source to the reliable source notice board for further discussion. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On these pages there has been no recent "controversy about birthdate discrepancy based on birth certificate from school records". I have not contributed to any discussion on Wikipedia about the date of birth. Therefore, your reference to the date of birth and subsequent points are totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion, which is the overdue need to study the LIMF biography to see what may be profitably added to the article.

The only dates that I have mentioned in the Wikipedia article, in a reference Note, are those which relate to Sathya Sai Baba's School attendances, given on photostats. These are verifiable, in Love is My Form, on the pages given in my Note. The dates are of interest because they do not coincide with the official biography statement that Sathya Sai Baba made his 2 separate Declarations and finally left school in 1940.

As for your surprising suggestion that LIMF may need to be referred to higher authority for a decision on its suitability, I refer you to the Credentials given above by the publishers. What is unreliable about them? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that. the concern lies in the presentation of the book. two relevant topics are brought to light, references to shirdi sai baba and "few discrepancies in the official biography, especially with reference to Sathya Narayana's school years", as having importance to Sathya Sai Baba's biography. the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba.

the author has issued an open call for contributors http://www.loveismyform.com/help.html and that may lead to some ambiguities in facts as a great number of people may claim to offer correct information.

the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography. the author himself says it was a form of "meditation and prayer" so maybe the description of the book/biography should be elaboarted on in the beliefs and practises section.

ombudswiki wrote "few discrepancies in the official biography, especially with reference to Sathya Narayana's school years" to what discrepensies are you refering to? i think these points need to be expanded on rather than who the publisher is.

J929 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

J929: Can you please present more coherent points for consideration?

What are we to make of thoughts like the following?

"the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba."

(Later you contradict yourself on this issue: "Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that."

And what does this mean?

"the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography."

Have you had a look at a copy yet? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A biographical book doesnt necassarily mean it (as a book) should be in the biography of the topic it discusses. the topic is Sathya Sai Baba yet you are making the book a topic. Your reasoning would dictate there should be an entire volume in the biography section on Kasturi's book Sathyam Sivam Sundaram - (Life of Sathya Sai Baba) itself.
What part of this do you not understand? (is this "coherent"?)
and again i state it looks suspicious.
Love is My Form, as it was written over the course of seven years could more elaborated on in the beleifs and practises section if that is what you want to do.
"...which belongs in this section as an addendum to the Kasturi information" you havent offered any new clear information. please elaborate on these discrepencies of school records and information about Shirdi Sai Baba for the reader.

the author of Love is my Form states, for seven years it was his penance, meditation and prayer. is then, writing the book a form of devotion? (which is a practise of devotees -as the section tile dictates) why then did you remove the parts of Love is my Form form the beliefs section? ( your contributions were not necassary for the topic in that section. if you do not want your 'edits' to be used there then remove those only) what end did you hope to achieve? an agenda becomes clear.
the only thing "hijacked" here is the article by you and mr. priddy's efforts to use wikipedia as grounds to propogate your opinions.

J929 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely fail to see any fruitful discussion emerging from all this. You are continuing to wander all over the place (as with your chosen topics of vandalism and the word "controversial"), and your tone and expression are often aggressive. Time for Wikipedia work (on this article and others) is limited for some of us.

At the risk of being boring, especially to any other readers of this Page, here is basically what I have suggested: LIMF is a biography. I have presented its credentials for people to examine. The book has not previously been considered by contributors to this article. Since its credentials (and a reading of the book itself) make clear that it is part of a serious project and goes far beyond Kasturi's brief hagiography about those early years, it needs to be studied to see if it has useful new information about the early years of Sathya Sai Baba? I also believe I have justified my suggestions with what I have posted here on Wikipedia recently. Please address those issues, in a clear and relevant manner, if you wish to get any further detailed comments from me on this topic. Ombudswiki (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

With a view to establishing the details of the original publishing plan by Sai Towers to publish volumes 2-6 of LIMF between 2002 and 2006, I copy verbatim from a table released in 2000 on the Sai Towers loveismyform.com website (the document was labelled “prepublication”). That document is no longer on the website and no update has been issued there in the past 7 years. However, there is an archived copy of it to be seen on [7] the Wayback Machine for 9 December 2006. Click on ‘Pre-Publication Offer’.

“Love is My Form. A Biographical Series on Sri Sathya Sai Baba” “Currently, research is progressing on the following volumes. To share the Divine Graciousness we offer you, our esteemed customers, a unique scheme. Work on each volume is proceeding rapidly !!! Tentative Dates of Release:

Vol 2 (1951 - 1960) - 23/11/2002 Advanteges: Pre-Publication offer at attractive discount of 40%

Vol 3 (1961 - 1970) - 23/11/2003

Vol 4 (1971 - 1980) - 23/11/2004 Advantages: Insured against increase in Production Cost & Postage charges

Vol 5 (1981 - 1990) - 23/11/2005

Vol 6 (1991 - 2000) - 23/11/2006 Advantages: Copies of each volume posted to you immediately upon release.”

Actual Cost of full set Rs. 25,000 + Postage Pre-Publication offer: Within India - Rs. 15,000 Overseas - Rs. 20,000 / US $ 435 Ombudswiki (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

State of Editors

hey, this is the second time i've had to re-write the "sign your posts by typing four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ " at the end of a post. the last post with respect to a discussion about valid sources ended with an 'edit' to the posting editor name, which read as such.
[?J929?]
oddly enough, there are edit records as to who adds these remarks.

i'm wondering if these 'edits' are vandalism? and, if so, should be dealt with as such.

i dont see why any attention should be given to the 'concerns/opinions' of an 'editor' who can not even let wikipedia do their work, ie

J929 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, I would like for you to provide differences to elaborate on what you are talking about, as not all editors are familiar with what you are talking about. I would also like to point out that the concerns/opinions of all editors, even the anonymous IPs and those that do not sign their posts, are valid to the Wikipedia cause. I can only say that I would hope that you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know this. Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

is there any response to your actions ombudswiki?

maybe your agenda ( http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ )(and possible conflict of interest with wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI ) has something to do with your editing, lack of co-operation and behavior.

J929 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What lack of cooperation are you referring to? I have closely followed the edits on the page, and I have found no faults in the edits of Ombudswiki. So far as I can tell, he is just working to expand the article like the rest of us. I don't usually follow the talk page, as I would rather not be tempted to become embroiled in yet another lengthy argument with the editors of this page. So if Ombudswiki has said that he was the author of the above mentioned website, I didn't see. If you could provide proof to your accusations, I would appreciate it. If you can't, I would remind you to assume good faith, and refrain from throwing around accusations. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, in the history section of the Sathya Sai Baba discussion please note that on 17:54 15 August 2009 there is an entry from J929, note the way the name is entered. ie at the end, four "~".

the next entry is 07:12 on August 16 2009 from ombudswiki. note now how the name at the end of the previous entry appears. has there been a change? somehow, some one (?) changed the entry to look like [?J929?]

am i correct to assume a change has occured?

does it promote unbiased editing? is it beneficial? does it adhere to the standards invoked by wikipedia? or is it vandalism?

ultimately, is it a change made in good faith? does it hint at moving forward? is it co-operation?

As far as edits, i'm concerned with the elaboration on the Life in My Form book. its clear in the paragraph before that there are discrepncies in the times and exact events of Sai Baba's life. I dont feel (my opinion) it has much place other than a quick reference to inform the reader. yet it has grown to incorporate phrases like "treasure trove" and "meticoulously planned" etc... personally it sounds like an ad. so after some research i found there is Brian Steel on the internet under the website http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ who is actively promoting anti-Sai Baba material and views. (note their is also a similarity of Spanish interests in the web page and his editing history) and also note that Brian Steel's (of the external tripod site) email address is ompukalani@... is this close to ombudswiki?
the similarities may be pure coincidence, but not unlikely... although that is an opinion.

i chose to bring light to it as these oddly placed phrases tend to 'promote' something. if the editor andries was banned for misleading information then does this activity (if the two Brian Steel are the same person) constitute a reason for concern. (for the quality of the page and the edits themselves) if the edits are misleading then is that conflict of interest with wikipedia.

originally the topic was trite vandalism but now i feel there may be other concerns.

as for lack of co-operation, i'm refering to the fact ombudswiki has not come forth and addressed this directly.

Thanks for your time.

is there a wikipedia forum to bring the concern of the two Brian Steels to light and get resolution?

J929 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The evidence you offered is all circumstantial. You have no real proof, other than a barely similar email. So I would appreciate it if you stop throwing around accusations against an editor that has committed no vandalism, that has made no bad edits (that I can ascertain), and that has just as much of a right to edit this page and share his opinions on the talk page as you do. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is good to get an outside opinion.

Recent protestations by User J929 seem to be more aimed at me personally than at the content of my Wikipedia postings. Surely it is on those that I should be "judged". OnoPearls seems to find them OK. I am grateful for that opinion but I understand that other wikipedians may disagree. If so, they should make clear where they think I am in error and give me a chance to add more evidence for my opinions, or withdraw my point.

I have made it quite clear on my User page what my name is and I have tried to stick to genuine points at issue in this article and, where relevant, I make suggestions on this Discussion page which might improve things. Only very occasionally do I add text to the article itself. My recent reference to the biography Love is My Form, Volume 1, which seems to have irritated J929 in some way, is to an essential bibliographical work, of which (s)he may have been unaware and with which I am very familiar. Similarly, I believe my concern about non Reliable devotee Sources is well-founded and worth further investigation both here and on other Sathya Sai Baba-related Wikipedia articles (of which there are many).

I have no idea who J929 is and I "judge" his/her contributions by what (s)he says in them. As the protesting tone increases, I am becoming less and less impressed at his/her ability to be relevant to the content and context of the Wikipedia discussions about this article. Ombudswiki (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had put an arbitration enforcement like a week ago on 3 well known 'Anti-Sai Baba' activist in the web who are involved in this 'Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45#Arbitration_Enforcement_request_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Baba_article
I think its high time for editors involved here to come clean with their true affiliations. Its very difficult to trust and work with other editors if they have agendas which they are trying to push secretly.
The case was closed abruptly before I could provide more evidence. However I do suspect like J929 that Ombudswiki is indeed 'Brian Steel' a well known 'Anti-Sai Baba activist' based on his other edits and contributions. If you are interested you can look at the case and all his contributions. The point I am trying to drive is Wikipedia says as long as some one declares truly their affiliations its ok to give their views since every body is aware of their affiliations. Hence I sincerely request editors to come clean on their own rather than other editors pointing out to them and providing evidence. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have only just noticed interesting parts of the phrasing of this posting. They deserve a comment.

Radiantenergy states:

"I had put an arbitration enforcement like a week ago on 3 well known 'Anti-Sai Baba' activist in the web who are involved in this 'Sathya Sai Baba article and talk page."

Since no one else will know what Radiantenergy is referring to in the above statement (except the 3 Users accused, of which I am one), it is worth pointing out that Radiantenergy merely posted a REQUEST ... and no one took any notice of it. So to claim later that "The case was closed abruptly before I could provide more evidence." is an odd way of describing his/her failure to attract the attention of Admins or anyone else. I suggest that this modus operandi should be taken into consideration in view of Radiantenergy's frequently robust way of presenting his/her views. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

this section started with a case of trite vandalism, (as shown in the history of edits in this page) onopearls there is your proof for vandalism. ("an editor that has committed no vandalism") so whats the deal? you asked for proof, there it is. what is wikipedia policy on such editing? i have provided several coincidences about ombudswiki's identity (of which i could care less) and ultimately his agenda (which is the concern, more so if it is hidden) as seen in the pages of the web site. (Please note also.... the edits form ombudswiki come at a late time for one (like myself) who is from N. America, inducing a conclusion it is possible to propose that the times are for mid day if one were living in Australia, where Anti-Sai Baba Brian Steel does happen to live.) he has not addressed this himself, ("I have made it quite clear on my User page what my name is and I have tried to stick to genuine points at issue in this article and, where relevant, I make suggestions on this Discussion page which might improve things. Only very occasionally do I add text to the article itself." nothing has been addressed. and nothing new offered if one were to look into the edit history. are these weasel?) yet if andries is not allowed to edit because of misleading information, why should another editor? if anyone has followed other discussions i do find a common trait of snide and heavily opinionated and generally heavy remarks. ie.

"J929, I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter " didnt know i was seeking something...
"Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty) " ?
"The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 "

etc etc etc... i have offered help and both in asking if he needs assistance and actually looked for sources. i have not gotten any thing other then negativity. hence, one has to wonder, why? there is evidence to sustain the believe that the wiki ombudswiki is the same as Brian steel's ompukalani@... and if so, then it may explain alot of the discussions and lack of resolutions. if one editor wants to to stick a wrench in the gears, let him to do it to himself, i dont see the reasoning why other editors have put up with one person's agenda. i support radiantenergy's request for editors to come clean. i have made edits clear and as neutral as possible and i hope there is an improvement in the quality of the article, but to me this is not a battle field and in no way will i accept that it is wikipedia policy to allow agenda based "shark in the water" editors.

and ombudswiki you havent addressed the vandalism yet. see history for 'real proof'. and onopearls, do you feel that such edits (clearly shown in the history of the page) are of a positive nature? "he has just as much of a right to edit this page" no one is arguing that, unless the editor has an agenda (ie Andries), yet is vandalism considering editing?

J929 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask that you provide differences for the vandalism that you continue to refer to. I personally do not have the time to search through the thousands of edits that have been made to this page in search of the vandalism that you continue to mention. So please provide diffs so that other editors, not just myself, may see what you repeatedly pointed out.

Secondly, I don't intend to sound preachy, but I must again remind all editors to assume good faith. Yes, it is helpful for all editors to reveal their true identity. However, it is not mandated by any WP policy. Ombudswiki has a right to privacy, as do all other Wikipedia contributors. So let us not harass editors that have, from what I can see, made no edits that could be construed as "vandalism". I have went through and looked at Ombudswiki very few edits to the article, and I have seen nothing remotely suspicious. It would appear that his edits, like mine, Radiantenergy's, and J929's, are aimed at bettering this butchered article.

On the talk page, I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending. He should aim at replying in a more neutral tone, even if some of the other editors are making no such effort.

I notice that J929 continues to refer to Andries. Unlike Ombudswiki, Andries has been involved in both arbitrations on this article, and he was banned from editing for a CoI. I, therefore, hardly seen any resemblance between the current situation and that involving Andries. Until J929 has more adamant evidence that directly links Ombudswiki to the anti-Sai Brian Steel, the comparison between the two is certainly premature.

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in this article again, unless it becomes obvious that my assistance is once more needed. However, I will continue to post my opinions on the talk page, and the editors may take away from them what they will. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Radiantenergy and J929, I have chosen to declare my identity on my User page. Is anyone making demands for them to identify themselves, even by posting their real names (as I have done, voluntarily)? Of course not. They should therefore concentrate their considerable energies on the content of my posts on Wikipedia, which Onopearls, who is the only other person to make a comment in this latest flurry of emotional postings, has found unexceptionable, as indeed I endeavour to make them. Please stick to the subject under discussion, gentlemen, or ladies, or lady and gentleman.

On the quite extraordinary matter of the alleged vandalism and J929's impassioned demands for justice and retribution, there is a very simple, practical, and totally innocuous, explanation. It is as follows: J929 forgot to sign and date a posting and so, to delineate where his/her contribution ended, before posting my reply, I tentatively added a partial possible identification for the posting: (?J992?). Four or five days later, J929 added the missing signature and date (but of course, by then it was 20 August not the 15th or 16th when he actually posted it). (By the way, if you are puzzled, the much later posting by Onopearls on 24 August is a specific criticism of parts of the previous post by J929, but it interrupts the original "flow".) Take a look at the records. So, is this vandalism? I think not. I am left wondering why J929 seeks to introduce or pursue issues like this while failing to address other specific issues under discussion in this article, which is about Sathya Sai Baba. Ombudswiki (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

i just took a look at the history again it seems that i did forget to sign the post. (although i do remember seeing a signed post). My apologies for having used the word 'vandalism' for something that clearly shows to be my own absent mindedness.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=next&oldid=308156706 is the dif. to which i think you are refering to onopearls. if its not the specific information you asked for, i provided the exact dates in a previous edit.

history section of the Sathya Sai Baba discussion, between
17:54 15 August 2009 (entry from from J929) and the next,
07:12 16 August 2009 from ombudswiki.)

on another note, i thought Andries was banned because of a negative point of view of Sai Baba, although hidden. what is "editing for a CoI. I"? any clarification is most appreciated...

Although i do think another issue has arisen. One of hidden agendas. Radiantenergy has expressed concern over it also. Ombudswiki has stated his full name in his wiki page. yet there is also another Brian Steel with a web site that is clearly an anti-sai baba site. if someone with such a negative opinion of Sai Baba edits the Sathya Sai Baba article, what are the effects? will the edits be neutral or unbiased? both gross and subtle. is there a conflict of interest? what is the proper course to remedy this?

J929 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be three main web sites operated by Brian Steel, the vocal anti Sai Baba critic...

http://www.briansteel.net/ deals with his writing in general, focusing on Spanish...

in an introductory blog in March 2008, Brian Steel states "Andrew Keen predicts a total of half a billion blogs by 2010. This only leaves me, and you, 3 years to try to make our voices heard, alongside those millions who have preceded us and already tried to stake their claim for public attention." (http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/a-beginning/)

Sathya Sai Baba becomes the blogging topic in....
http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/fuzzy-dates-in-the-official-biography-of-sathya-sai-baba-a-re-examination/
http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/sathya-sai-baba-questionable-stories-and-claims-part-1/
part 2...
http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/sathya-sai-baba-questionable-stories-and-claims-part-2/

and the list goes on...
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/indssbib.htm
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/doss4biogamend.htm

"NOTE: A HUGE CORNUCOPIA of mind-boggling up-to-date revelations and links about SSB are available on the principal website of ex-devotee and ex-SSO official ROBERT PRIDDY. " (http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/index.html)

J929 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of all these external links to websites? I suggest you restrict your comments to material offered in the Wikipedia article or on these Discussion pages, as Wikipedia procedures surely require. Time spent on unfruitful arguing and accusations is time lost for adding valid information to the article itself. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the "material offered in the Wikipedia article " as it is, seems suspicious (as i have elaborated on in the next section) and "these external links to websites" allow other editors a clear view of anti Sai Baba views.

J929 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Other editors are perfectly capable of using the Internet to find out about critical views on Sathya Sai Baba. Once again, I suggest you restrict your comments to material offered in the Wikipedia article or on these Discussion pages, as Wikipedia procedures surely require. Time spent on unfruitful arguing and accusations is time lost for adding valid information to the article itself. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

what "good faith" is there if there is another "brian steel" who maintains an anti Sai Baba site? (with same email/name ie ombudswiki-ompukalani, same writing styles, same interests in Spanish and Sai Baba, etc...) is that a conflict of interest with wikipedia? it would makes sense then to add such 'condesending' remarks as

"The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 (above) and the emotional tone of the "discussion" on this topic (and, earlier, on the epithet "controversial") are greatly to be regretted"
"Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty)"
"I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter"
" have removed that query and offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest "

etc etc etc... to avoid actually addressing the topics, or are these comments meant to present an agenda to the discussion? these are concerns, not convenient "arguements"... how do these concerns amount in "time lost for adding valid information to the article itself." when as we can see what is happening with the 'Love is My form' biographical book. or is it a competition for attention with no hope of resolve?

J929 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, J929, but this sounds like more of the same to me. Try to present your case, whatever it is, more clearly (both in thought and linear arrangement) so that others can see what you are talking about. Please make sure also that you are dealing (fairly, of course) with material offered in the Wikipedia article or on these Discussion pages. Since you have concentrated so much effort on questioning the listing and description of LIMF as a major biographical source, let me ask you a simple basic question, which can easily be answered: Are you in favour of using Love is My Form as a reliable source of biographical material, or not? Perhaps we can proceed from that answer. Ombudswiki (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Devotee of Sai Baba discusses Erlendur Haraldsson

I am a devotee of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba and I believe that what this gentelman, Erlendur Haraldsson, has tried to do something and expects an answer to something which is unanswerable to a mind whose windows are shut. You must open all the windows of your mind to remove all the "Agyaan" and for it to be filled with the divine beauty of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. A mind filled with doubting beliefs will never understand any of the spiritual powers and will stay confined in the materialistic and the "what I see is what I believe" kind of scientific world. Mr. Erlendur Haraldsson thinks that the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba exaggerate the miracles just because he hasn't experienced one himself and therefore questions Baba's will and powers. The reason why Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba did not let Mr. Erlendur Haraldsson examine him in controlled conditions is because he wants Mr. Erlendur Haraldsson to experience his divine beauty first-hand with a clean and pure mind and heart rather with a closed and doubtful mind. Mr. Erlendur Haraldsson might think, after reading my response, that who the hell am I to question his years of knowledge and experience and I might as well agree with him since I am only a 15 year old boy who is a New Zealand citizen and a devotee of "Bhagwan" but what I firmly believe is that he should go to Sathya Sai Baba with a pure heart and only then will he be able to experience Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba's divine love for all. If he would like a full discussion with me he is most welcome to. Anybody can post their e-mail address at the end of this topic if they would like to communicate with me in this regard and I promise a garunteed response to anybody and everybody with all sorts of comments and opinions. BHAGWAN SRI SATHYA SAI BABA JI KI, JAI!!!

this was in the article and deleted, i felt it appropriate to add it to the discussion as it is the right forum. i did not edit this any way, nor did i write it...

J929 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of beginning a new section to offer this strong expression of POV by a fervent devotee? There are still valid points unanswered in preceding sections. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Alaya Rahm, BBC and Sathya Sai Baba Case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am reinstating the removed paragraph referring to the BBC documentary. The ground for removing that paragraph - as given by Radiant Energy - is invalid, mainly since the fact that the trial of Goldstein was withdrawn has no significance as regards the allegations made on the BBC documentary, which still stand and have never been challenged in court. The BBC film has never been challenged in court and is a trusted media source and so its documentary aired world-wide is highly relevant source to cite. It presents, along with other evidence about claimed miracles, the recorded views of the most senior figure in the International Sathya Sai Organization, Dr. Michael Goldstein and *it details the Rahm family's involvement and allegations, which Goldstein is filmed refusing to investigate. The former Home Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, V.P. Nair - who was involved in investigations after the 1993 murders in in Sathya Sai Baba's quarters in his Prashanthi Nilayam ashram - is interviewed and makes a very important statement concerning the murder cover-up. It also definitively confirms that the US State Department issued a warning which specifically referred to visiting Sathya Sai Baba, which has not been legally challenged. It further documents the views of one of the major supporters of Sathya Sai Baba, Isaac Tigrett - who donated money for the Sathya Sai Super-speciality Hospital - including his opinion that the sexual abuses did or probably did take place. 'The Secret Swami' was also widely reviewed most positively in the UK press as recorded here [8].

Radiant Energy wrote "as we have the court documents". (To which ‘we’ does this refer? It is only so far shown that the former editor SSS108, who linked to his own pages as those of Gerald Joe Moreno, has the court documents). However, the documents deposited by parties contained nothing but allegations which were never discussed in court, since the case was withdrawn on technical grounds, which has been made clear by the joint statement of the Rahm family here [9]. The main reason for withdrawal of the case was that there was no Sathya Sai Organization registered in the USA, only a bookshop and a charitable society, which could not be held responsible for what Alaya Rahm testified that he was subjected to by Sathya Sai Baba. The court documents have no weight as objective evidence in that there was no court decision whatever. Besides, a member of the public who visited the Clerk of Court on my behalf could not obtain the specific Lewis Kreydick testimony or certain other court documents since they were not released publicly, being made available only privately to the lawyers and contending parties. I have explained this on Wiki talk pages in 2006 when I removed a very long excerpt by SSS108 from a deposition by an opponent of Alaya Rahm, a subjective document which in no way invalidated Alaya Rahm’s allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. SSS108 was unable to provide any proof that he had - as he claimed - bought the specific court records from the Court, no receipt was forthcoming.

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

ProEdit: Please read the Reliable Source Notice board discussion. Its very clear from your above arguments that you haven't read this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question. That will answer all your questions. I will implementing the reliable source recommendations. Thanks for your cooperation. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability." To say that Sai Baba's notability results from the false and unproven allegations is ridiculous. Sai Baba's notability comes from His alledged miracles (performed on a daily basis for at least 75 years and are well documented), power to directly influence people's lives and his humanitarian works.Because a few people have tried to magnify the "allegations" on the internet does not make it the reason for his notability. Looking at it from the standpoint of His entire life, its a small minority that has a negative view of Sai Baba. WP:BLP further states that the viewpoint of a small minority has no place in the article. Besides the points I just mentioned, the BBC's documentary doesn't deal with facts, only speculation, which makes it highly suspect. The documentary was a stretch as it was based on a teenager's testimony who later dropped his case. The fact that the two main subjects were supposedly abused and still remained devotees for 25 years makes the documentary look suspicious. The documentary was also one-sided and yet it didn't have any hard evidence that there was any wrongdoing. Sbs108 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sbs108, you misinterpret WP:BLP, the accusations of sexual abuse and fake miracles are relevant for SSB because of his claim to be an avatar,and God almighty, the Father Who sent Jesus, etc. As a comparison, doping accusations are relevant for a professional sporter, even if the accusations did not make the professional sporter famous. Andries (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that paragraph or mention of the allegations as a small part of the article. They shouldn't be magnified however and portrayed as if they are proven or even material in the life of Sai Baba.In reality they are a foot note in history as its a dead story. It has not garnered any steam since 2004. They have had no impact whatsoever, and if I am correct, criticism in an article is revelent to the subjects notability and its impact on the individual which in Sai Baba's case is absolutely nill.Sbs108 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Take the discussion to the BLP noticeboard. That's the correct forum. Sbs108 continues to make libelous claims about the BBC, and Radiantenergy claims anybody who disagrees must not have read the discussion. I've read the discussion, and I think that the BLP noticeboard is the place to have the discussion since it deals with important policy questions. The BBC is a reliable source; there is broad consensus both inside and outside Wikipedia on this. You disagree. That's your choice, but you're going to find few who agree with you. Bhimaji (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not making libelous claims against the BBC. Just because a trusted news source insinuates something doesn't make it true, especially when they had no facts. What I am saying is that the documentary was all speculation, they didn't present any strong evidence of wrongdoing. Anybody can say anything. The BBC is not jury and judge. The fact that the Rahms dropped their case for whatever reason makes the documentary suspect since the whole thing was based on the Rahms testimony. The fact that the two men (Mark Roche and the Father) were supposedly molested and then remained ardent devotees for 25 years also makes this documentary suspicious.Sbs108 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has made errors in reporting. • 2001: the Ten O'Clock News broadcast an apology for wrongly calling a director of the Oryx Natural Resources company of Oman a "convicted terrorist". • 2003: the BBC apologised for the radio broadcast in which the reporter Andrew Gilligan said that Downing Street had "sexed up" the Iraq dossier which alleged Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes. • 2007: the BBC was fined £50,000 for doctoring the results of a phone-in on the children's programme Blue Peter.^[1]

"The pair (Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross of the BBC) left answerphone messages for the 78-year-old Fawlty Towers star in which they told him Brand had slept with his granddaughter and joked that the actor might kill himself as a result."^[2]
"In a post-race interview, Balding (of the BBC) urged the jockey to show his teeth and told him he could afford to "get them done" after winning the biggest race of his life." ^[3]

The BBC was started some 60+ years ago, and maintained a complete monopoly on the communications of the British empire up until the 1980s. To think that they have no agenda (or opinion) is fallacious. (note where the program was aired; canada and Australia-- still a UK colonial relation?--) are you presenting facts or peoples (or company's) interpretations of 'events'?

J929 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"The documentary carried interviews in which former long-term devotees claim they were sexually violated by the godman." who? what did they say? if no specifics or citation, seems biased and should be removed.

J929 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing BLP Violations as per Reliable Source Noticeboard discussion on BBC and Alaya Rahm trial:

BBC allegations based on Alaya Rahm's claims must be removed to fix the BLP violations from the article as per the 'Wikipedia Reliable source Notice board - discussion and conclusion.

Radiantenergy (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 (above) and the emotional tone of the "discussion" on this topic (and, earlier, on the epithet "controversial") are greatly to be regretted.

Please refer to the documentary, Secret Swami, and you will see that it does NOT simply deal with the sexual allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and cannot therefore be banished from this article by the sort of endless filibustering which has come to characterise these discussions about Sathya Sai Baba. Such activities act as a permanent obstacle to the composition of a balanced article on this controversial topic. The only way out of this impasse is to identify and consult the available sources of information and to report them fairly (including the BBC documentary). Ombudswiki (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion on the reliable source notice board you will see that a majority of the editors who are neutral and not involved in the article call the BBC's documentary into question. As radiantenergy said, these editors are all experienced Wikipedians. I don't see how questioning the BBC's documentary is extraordinary.Sbs108 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"report them fairly' works. although what the BBC has to say itself (what claims the reporters make) is useless. (as you can see by the vast number of apologies the BBC has to make) Anyone with a microphone and a camera making assertions willy nilly doesnt count as a source. the BBC reporting someone's experience is valid, edits based on the BBC(team)'s opinions are not.

J929 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said before - I only see editors Bhimaji, Andries and Pro-Edit pushing their POV views and hindering the implementation of the reliable source notice board recommendations about removing the BLP violating BBC material. Its not acceptable to leave the BLP violating material in the article. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty) would now care to consider the points I made in my previous comment (especially about viewing the whole of the BBC documentary instead of the chosen target). I would also urge them to re-examine the tone, content and value of many of their recent contributions to these Discussion pages. How do they really propose to enhance the content of this article with such consistently negative lines of argument and by ignoring, or attempted blanket bans on, reputable evidence? (The following Section of this Discussion is also relevant here.) Ombudswiki (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing BLP violating BBC material

Here the discussion is about removing only the 'Sexual Allegation claims by BBC' which they alleged on Sathya Sai Baba with out verifying any facts. Even their allegations are heresay allegations of Alaya Rahm's. Leaving the BBC material based on 'Alaya Rahm's' allegations in the article is definitely a BLP violation as noted in the Wikipedia:Reliable Source discussion.
Even the rest of the criticism is badly written like the ones from Salon.com. Its surprising that inspite of Wikipedia BLP laying so many rules about carefully writing BLP articles - this is the Worst written strong criticism in a BLP article based on heresay allegations.
2001 Salon article pretty much covers many of these here say allegations. I don't see why we need a paragraph of heresay allegations from Salon.com? Is the paragraph written like in a neutral encyclopedia - No. Its like so and so said that some body came and told that they were being abused by Sathya Sai Baba etc. The example will be claims by some one called Hari Sampath' he says some students came and told him they were abused. There is no names mentioned. We don't know who told him or want exactly they told him. There are examples of random allegations based from unverified sources and heresay allegations. These questionable heresay allegations have to be removed. This paragraph from Salon.com has to be rewritten and readdressed.
Coming back to BBC. Does BBC have any Criticism. Yes. There is a whole article dedicated to Criticism on BBC in Wikipedia. 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC'. BBC has been criticized for its bias on 'Racism', 'Alleged Anti and Pro Israeli Bias', 'Alleged Anti-American Bias' and other biases. The article also said that In January 2005, the BBC aired the Jerry Springer: The Opera, ultimately resulting in around 55,000 complaints to the BBC from those upset at the opera's alleged blasphemies against the Christian religion.
As I stated before the 'Alaya Rahm Trial and BBC' were discussed in the Reliable Source noticeboard discussions. The reason why I did not start the discussion initially here is because everytime there is a discussion editors oppose any positive change to the article because of their WP:COI. We are unable to arrive at any decision rather get into endless arguments with out getting anything done. That's the reason I took this issue to the WP:RS board. It was discussed by independant wikipedians and decision was made. Its high time to implement this decision and remove the BLP violating BBC material as per the reliable source notice board discussion. It cannot be left in the article because of a few editors POV pushing. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating the oft-removed paragraph about the BBC and Alaya Rahm: Radiantenergy asked "ProEdit" (sloppily instead of ProEdits) to read the Reliable Source Notice board discussion (above). There is nothing to be found supporting his/her contention that Sathya Sai Baba should be exempt from such a well-documented criticism. Radiantenergy's weak and untenable argumentation through avoidance of issues is not sufficient reason to remove the BBC-related para. Here is an example of what Radiantenergy wrote on the RS Notice board discussion (where he/she made two links to Gerald Moreno's attack websites, thus proving that he/she supports the Moreno obfusctory agenda): "Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations. Sathya Sai Baba name was cleared." Wrong and wrong again: 1) There was no trial, the case was withdrawn! (Apropos, the reasons are stated clearly here) 2) Alaya Rahm was NOT found guilty of anything, and certainly not of making false accusations. 3) What is "pretty much"? Answer: There is no such thing in legal parlance. It is a tendentious phrase in this context. 4) Sathya Sai Baba's name was not mentioned as having been cleared in any document.

These points undermine the standpoint of all pro-Sai POV editors (including J929) as to the relevance of the court case to the Sathya Sai Baba issue.

WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability." Sathya Sai Baba's public notability is largely due to a massive amount of literature, video, and other broadcasting. The majority of it is organized by his organization and supporters, not by reliable sources. However, the BBC is regarded world wide as perhaps the most reliable source of information. The reference to the BBC documentary (as shown on BBC World television in over 100 countries) was removed without sound reasons by Radiant Energy (as I pointed out but without direct answer to my points). What I reinstated is highly relevant to Sathya Sai Baba's notability since it is the only main world-wide broadcaster to have devoted a full-length documentary to him.

The allegations made by Alaya Rahm still stand [as do those of Mark Roche http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/thesecretswami/marcroche.wmv]. The BBC representation of them has not been challenged legally, and the legal standing of the BBC is secure. It is a travesty of all good sense to claim that this most widely regarded international documentary maker is unduly biased. It is not speculation, it consists in interviews and direct filming, but also includes a short sequence using the accepted method of drama-doc presentation to represent known events accurately. Those who argue that mistakes are sometimes made by the BBC (eg J929) should know that, in this matter, the BBC were asked to apologise by Sai Baba Organization leaders, but no such apology was made and the matter was not pursued by the Sathya Sai Organization for obvious reasons... the BBC were legally covered in every way. The BBC were invited to make their film by the International Chairman of the Sathya Sai Organization (Dr. Michael Goldstein), and were given privileged access to Sai Baba's ashram during the most important event of the year, Shivarathri. They were also invited by Goldstein to a London conference held by the organization, as included in the film. As is evident in the film material itself, the BBC filmed both the Shivarathri festival in Sai Baba's ashram, Prashanthi Nilayam and at a Sathya Sai Organization conference in London. Dr. Michael Goldstein later invited the BBC to his home in California, but the BBC by then had found it necessary through use of a hidden camera to expose the cultist nature of his reactions to them and blank denials of sexual abuse evidence. Though extremely significant and damaging to the Sathya Sai Organization and Dr. Goldstein, this exposure was never legally contested by Dr. Goldstein. That the programme was made in 2004 in no way invalidates it - if all materials referred to on Wikipedia had to be later than 2004 it would be beyond absurdity. The BBC documentary is still also quite widely available on-line in various forms, from transcripts to full videos and can even be obtained from the BBC at Bush House by writing to them.

In view of all my evidence on this page, and considering the avoidance of any proper answers to the specific point I made when last reinstating this para., I am once again reinstating the paragraph as removed so as to try to whitewash Sathya Sai Baba. If edit warring on this continues, it will eventually be brought to the further attention of administrators for their judgement````ProEdits (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEdits (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for having used the wrong key when trying to sign the above edit. ProEdits (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating BBC references: WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability." Sathya Sai Baba's public notability is largely due to a massive amount of literature, video, and other broadcasting. The majority of it is organized by his organization and supporters, not by reliable sources. However, the BBC is regarded world wide as perhaps the most reliable source of information. The reference to the BBC documentary (as shown on BBC World television in over 100 countries) was removed without sound reasons by Radiant Energy (as I pointed out but without direct answer to my points). What I reinstated is highly relevant to Sathya Sai Baba's notability since it is the only main world-wide broadcaster to have devoted a full-length documentary to him.

The allegations made by Alaya Rahm still stand [as do those of Mark Roche http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/thesecretswami/marcroche.wmv]. The BBC representation of them has not been challenged legally, and the legal standing of the BBC is secure. It is a travesty of all good sense to claim that this most widely regarded international documentary maker is unduly biased. It is not speculation, it consists in interviews and direct filming, but also includes a short sequence using the accepted method of drama-doc presentation to represent known events accurately. Those who argue that mistakes are sometimes made by the BBC (eg J929) should know that, in this matter, the BBC were asked to apologise by Sai Baba Organization leaders, but no such apology was made and the matter was not pursued by the Sathya Sai Organization for obvious reasons... the BBC were legally covered in every way. The BBC were invited to make their film by the International Chairman of the Sathya Sai Organization (Dr. Michael Goldstein), and were given privileged access to Sai Baba's ashram during the most important event of the year, Shivarathri. They were also invited by Goldstein to a London conference held by the organization, as included in the film. As is evident in the film material itself, the BBC filmed both the Shivarathri festival in Sai Baba's ashram, Prashanthi Nilayam and at a Sathya Sai Organization conference in London. Dr. Michael Goldstein later invited the BBC to his home in California, but the BBC by then had found it necessary through use of a hidden camera to expose the cultist nature of his reactions to them and blank denials of sexual abuse evidence. Though extremely significant and damaging to the Sathya Sai Organization and Dr. Goldstein, this exposure was never legally contested by Dr. Goldstein. That the programme was made in 2004 in no way invalidates it - if all materials referred to on Wikipedia had to be later than 2004 it would be beyond absurdity. The BBC documentary is still also quite widely available on-line in various forms, from transcripts to full videos and can even be obtained from the BBC at Bush House by writing to them.

In view of all my evidence on this page, and considering the avoidance of any proper answers to the specific point I made when last reinstating this para. as removed - and later replaced in a very watered-down and altered version as if to try to cover-up the nature of the case. The removal of the specific allegations from this paragraph in the strongly 'toned down' version amount to a clear attempt to minimise and obfuscate the criticism through omission of the cardinal data. I recommend that the pro-Sai POV pushers should cease their edit-warring on this entry.ProEdits (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits - First stop pushing your Point of View and rather read through the reliable source notice board resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question. It really does not matter what you think about this case. This has been discussed in length in this forum where it was concluded that leaving BBC material is a BLP violation.
Yes - WP:BLP states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability." But does not mean the material has to be presented as a tabloid or a gossip column. I have removed unneccssary drama and have summarised what BBC claimed and presented in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Also it is neccessary to follow it with the 2006 case from the Daily Pioneer as it is directly related to what BBC claims.
User:ProEdits - Its very clear from your above explanations that you were directly involved in this case. From your contributions I also noticed that you were also involved during the second arbitration case where they banned using content from your website. They said. "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.".

I am wondering inspite of this arbitration ruling why are you edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article?. Your edit-warring is further evidence clearly indicating that you are pushing your 'Anti-SaiBaba' agenda into wikipedia. I request you further stop pushing POV and follow Wikipedia rules. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiant Energy, you are wondering why I edit, and you advise me to stop pushing my POV and edit-warring, but it is you who are repeatedly removing materials that go against your declared belief that Sathya Sai baba is not guilty of what he stands accused so widely. You say that "it was concluded that leaving BBC material was a BLP violation" and so you tell me it doesn't matter what I think. Thanks a lot, but that is your personal point of view, not that of people who read properly. By whom and where? I have read it all but you are completely wrong, so it does matter what I say about this bluffing. All the vague back and forth on that page is almost saturated by your questionable opinions which cannot be called other than subjective conclusions at best. [[[10]]] I shall return to the entirely untrue Daily Pioneer article's main statement about my blog later, for it is of course an unsound source article. You call the quotes not "tabloid or gossip column" materials, also 'unnecessary drama' but these quotes are verbatim from legally unchallenged documentaries by both national and world-wide broadcaster (BBC). You have added this empty innuendo to your former deeply flawed pseudo-arguments to whitewash Sathya Sai Baba without any new evidence other than the bogus claim that a court case in which Sai Baba was not even mentioned in the verdict on self-dismissal of the case by Alaya Rahm. After trying to remove the entire BBC para. a severely cut-down version was made which you have reinstated without answering any of my chief points directly, while I have answered all of your main points. Your erasures come closer to vandalism the more often you do it. I suggest you enter into a genuine dialogue on the very points I have made, since I am trying to improve through serious editing, even though your persistent (false) allegations against me would try to deny me this right. You even removed the fact that the BBC documentary was shown in over 100 countries of the world, thereby making it seem it was but shown in a very few. You clearly want to minimise - preferable remove as much a possible - all mention of the sexual abuse and other legally unchallenged reports by the BBC. The reasons I have given to reinstate the full BBC passage still stand unchallenged in any serious way.

So Radiantenergy tried to launch an arbitration case against me as a result of a single edit I made, but he was ignored by all administrators. I remind him that I was never banned from editing, though now defunct websites of mine were proclaimed to be "attack websites" and based on "personal experience and unverifiable original research". However, much of my research is eminently verifiable, but of course not my personal experience since none such are consider so on Wikipedia encyclopedic articles. Nothing more was stated about them, though Radiantenergy strongly suggests otherwise. Meanwhile Radiantenergy is quite happy to allow links to a website attacking all critics of Sai Baba but which was banned as a source by the arb. com decision against SSS108 namely, saisathyasai.com (who has been identified through his many links to his own pages as as Gerald Joe Moreno). In view of your advice to me, how do you justify this? Did you insert those links or any like them, since you rely so heavily on the same twisted and non sequitur argumentation in them about Alaya Rahm and the BBC? (Direct answer awaited). Links in footnotes to vishvarupa.com and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com are illegal on the main page, the webmaster of both was banned from Wikipedia, so I removed them.

Radiant Energy, J29, and Sbs108, have mutually supported one another in this agenda in their denial that there is a public controversy about Sathya Sai Baba. They are all anonymous editors, but they repeatedly demonstrate their support for - and replication of much of - the extreme anti-critic agenda of banned SSS108. After that round of long and sustained attacks on me and my editing , I was not banned, as my attackers were by an unanimous panel of six Wiki administrators. My editing was exonerated and a Wiki administrator then awarded me The Purple Heart Barnheart for "getting a bad rap and good editing".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProEdits). J929 has registered a conflict of interest and questioned me. I have replied in the right place, but add that all my entries have, in my own view, been true and hence not biased (i.e. neutral), even though I am a dissident and ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba and am making the world aware of the many deceptions of which I came to learn, yet also largely documented sources, especially his own published words and independently reported actions. ProEdits (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits I request you once again stop from disrupting the Sathya Sai Baba article and pushing your POV views.
User:ProEdits Follow the wikipedia rules - read through what well experienced wikipedians concluded about using BBC material and the BLP fixes in the notice board discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question. Reliable source is one of the highest forums for sources - they clearly stated that leaving BBC material is a BLP violation.
Don't use wikipedia to push your agendas. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User Radiantenergy I have read every detail of the BLP materials you have promoted three times and I can see that no 'conclusion' is reached, only what priyanath 'thinks' who is just one wikipedian among others, however experienced he may or may not be. I contest his opinion as being based on inadequate acquaintance with - or recognition of - the issues and arguments concerning notability and the specific sourced criticism. Meanwhile, other experienced wikipedians do not concur with him or you on the BLP page. Why do no admins. follow up your request for arbitration 9very premature) against me after I made a single revert? The answer supplies itself. Until a formal ruling is given (also on this specific issue), I shall not comply with your wishes.

Do stop trying to patronise me with superfluous advice, stop pushing your own easily detectable POV/agenda - as you have already done to whitewash Sathya Sai Baba with many specious arguments and unsound interpretations of supposed 'court evidence'.

You would surely know that SSS108 was banned not least because he pursued virtually the same line of arguments on the very same subjects in a very similar fashion to yourself? The ArbCom. decision banned reference to his various websites. I see you avoid my question, namely, did you not link on Wikipedia to any of his pages? Simple to answer.

Please obey the rules and spirit of Wikipedia yourself, such as 'to assume good faith', not repeatedly attack those with whom you disagree, reply to points raised concerning your statements, not removing material and reverting every edit without sound reasons. :::Wishing to avoid hypocrisy, I shall only write 'thank you' when it becomes justified by future civil observance of dialogue!ProEdits (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits - The reason why I took the BBC discussion to WP:RS is to get verdict by neutral outside wikipedians uninvolved with this project.
User:ProEdits - You said there were no administrators involved in the BBC material discussion in the WP:RS board. I will like to point to you that there were 2 administrators who supported removing the BBC material as its a BLP violation.

User:Jehochman is an administrator. He is also actively involved in arbitration enforcement cases.
User:RegentsPark is also administrator.
The other wikipedian Priyanath is another very experienced and well respected outside wikipedians who is actively involved in contributing to number of wikipedia projects as well as involved in deciding which articles gets deleted in wikipedia.

User:ProEdits - The other statement you made is that there were no conclusions made in the WP:RS board. I will like to point out there were clear recommendations made by these outside wikipedians. I have copied some important recommendations from this discussion.

User: Jehochman stated that "Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source". - He asked if the trial was covered in a secondary source. Daily Pioneer article on Sathya Sai Baba covering the trial was proposed as a secondary source for the trial. It was agreed by 3 editors that Daily Pioneer is a reliable sourced for the trial as the original Court documents are available from the Superior Court website on Alaya Rahm case.
RegentPark comments about BBC - "I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".
Priyanath BLP comments: Priyanath also agreed to removing BBC material due to BLP concerns. He stated that "IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)".

User:ProEdits - It cannot be explained more clearly than this that leaving the BBC material is a BLP violation to the article.
Every time there is a question about a source its taken to the RS board. WP:RS board has clearly given the verdict that leaving the BBC material is a BLP violation. So I request you adhere by the WP:RS discussion. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The RS discussion was started with inaccurate and misleading claims. It is a BLP policy question rather than a source reliability question. The court case was dismissed voluntarily. The discussion implied it was lost. Big difference. Bhimaji (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User J929 I observe you have taken over Radiantenergy's agenda here trying to water down the BBC materials and make them as innocuous as possible, I have replaced the vital information and improved the bad writing ("alleged allegations" and some redundant phrases and wrong grammar).ProEdits (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

There is enough criticism in the article as it stands. All allegations against Sai Baba are unsubstantiated, unproven and have no basis contrary to what some editors with attack web sites might think. Its a dead story and getting deader (if that's a word) as time moves forward. The "allegations" have not been left out of the article. They have been mentioned in proportion to their significance. The life of Sathya Sai Baba in totality must be accurately portrayed and the "blip" of allegations can not be magnified beyond their impact on the individual which has been absolutely nil. Please do not add any more criticism. Sbs108 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sbs108: While it is obviously relevant to discuss Criticism (of Sathya Sai Baba) in these pages, your revealing piece of POV leaves readers in no doubt where you stand. I imagine you are looking for expressions of sympathy rather than debate – which, on the basis of the above, would be a total waste of time, like much of the endless activity on these acres of discussions. There are 14 or 15 Archives full of them and still there is no stable article on Sathya Sai Baba. It is still classified as C-class by Wikipedia. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits whose defamatory website on Sathya Sai Baba was banned by the second arbitration commitee is openly disrupting the article due to his WP:COI and pushing his POV agenda and views. He obviously is trying to magnify unneccesary Criticism and bent on disrupting this article and any improvements to it. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine this is just the sort of comment Sbs108 is looking for. Presumably, its "target" will respond to the characteristically vigorous phraseology in due course. How much more time will be squandered in this way? Ombudswiki (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiantenergy has now accused me of vandalism ([11:48, 16 September 2009 :"Lately User:ProEdits has been vandalizing this page removing important reliable sources from the article repeatedly because of his conflict of interest!!!"]). This does not hold up compared to Wikipedia policy. (Note Wikipedia: vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." .. and "Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." Careful though - not accusation - is required. My edits are made in good faith - indeed some are to protect myself from Wikipedia endorsing an outright lie about me (Daily Pioneer article). This latest attack on me is yet another (added to Radiantenergy's Arb. com request which was ignored by administrators. Rediantenergy and his co-operators J929 and Sbs108 are conspiring to bring any charges they can against me. They want my input blocked and banned. Though I disagree strongly with many of their viewpoints and methods, I have not so far reacted with any formal complaints against them. However, if these attempts continue to try to smear my reputation as a good editor (see my talk page), I shall require that my reasons for deleting the tendentious and untrue Daily Pioneer epaper article be looked into formally. Thjat it has earlier been deemed a reliable source will have to change, in light of the evidence now available.ProEdits (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't just a remove a source that has been discussed already and proved reliable. here was a whole discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question

The article is good as it stands, by taking away the Pioneer you are skewing the reality. According to you Baba stands "widely accused" this is your opinion only.You are trying to get rid of counter arguments,there is no conspiracy. The article as it stands is fair to both viewpoints given the right proportionality to criticism given the rules of WP:BLP. Removing sources and adding more criticism when not warranted is not "input." Sbs108 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by ProEdits aka Activist Robert Priddy

User:ProEdits you have vandalised the Sathya Sai article several times in the last 2 days.

[11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

User:ProEdits: Stop Vandalism and removing very important reliable sources from the article because of your WP:COI.
You cannot remove a reliable source citing fringe reasons such as this source quotes my name hence it cannot be reliable. That's the reason why the activist are not allowed edit the articles in wikipedia where they are involved directly. This is not your personal website. This is wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what is published in other reliable sources.
If you don't stop this vandalism you will be reported to the arbitration commiteee as disrupting this article for pushing your personal agendas.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User Radiantenergy and pro-Sai activist: I did not remember that more than 3 reverts was defined as vandalism as long as I was presenting civil, cogent and valid arguments why the source is unreliable. I would have hoped you may have been understanding and honest enough to admit it is entirely unfair and disreputable as regards the untrue attack it makes on me, which forms its pivotal introduction. I have explained to you already that this is far from being merely a matter of the source "quoting my name". The remainder of the baseless smears against me and other dissidents take their start and impetus from this untrue introductory paragraph. The entire article thereafter is tainted with the same brush. Moreover, before the Daily Pioneer published anything about the SWARA revolt, the only material to appear on the Internet denouncing the SWARA clients and their defenders was made by Gerald Joe Moreno in his sathyasaibaba.wordpress blog (among other of his many anti-dissident web pages). The Daily Pioneer article follows Moreno's agenda and claims very closely, using the same references and language as he uses. You are still defending this unfair and untrue product of a former Wiki contributor editor whose websites were banned by a panel of 5 persons (SSS108 or Gerald Moreno), while he was banned indefinitely and unanimously from editing by six persons. How do you justify that? If this kind of article is to form the basis of Wikipedia, then it is will become a travesty of an encyclopedia.ProEdits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

An activist is defined simply as "an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause". Having a web-site soley devoted to the task of defaming someone is activism. Merely editing an article in wikipedia where you have interest in making it fair is not activism I am sorry to tell you. Please don't paint editors who even though have a favorable view of Sathya Sai Baba, as the opposite side of the coin as yourself, we are not. We are also not Joe Moreno, so please stop mentioning his name. Once again the article is fair and mentions the allegations in proportion to their importance in the overall life of Sathya Sai Baba. By removing a source that has been discussed by outside editors and deemed reliable to this article, you are trying to apply your own logic as to why it shouldn't be in the article. Again do what you want on your website as this is not an extension of your website. The Pioneer is important because it casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations which as suspect by themselves.Sbs108 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to move forward with this

OK, as this situation is more than a little confusing for someone who does not know all the history and intricacies of this, something which is not being helped by everyone adding more text, let's try and simplify the concerns and issues around this so we can move forward.

Please correct me if I am wrong or am missing anything salient when I try and condense this latest edit war to the following:

ProEdits believes that a source being used for a citation is unreliable.

The RS noticeboard has declared that in general the source in question (The Daily Pioneer) can be considered a reliable source

The article being cited mentions ProEdits by his real name.

ProEdits disagrees with the veracity of the article being cited

ProEdits is attempting to remove the entire section on the basis of the asserted reliability of the source.

ProEdits' only basis for claiming the source is unreliable is the fact that is mentions his name and thus it must be in some way biased.

Does that sum up the situation?

If so then here's some facts that are readily apparent.

ProEdits has a clear Conflict Of Interest

An editor with a COI is entitled to remove material, or ask that material be removed, if it may be unreliably sourced and is controversial or may be in some way damaging to his/her reputation or have legal ramifications. This does not seem to be the case here.

If a newspaper is considered generally reliable then that is adequate for it to be used to cite facts. The burden of proof is then passed onto the source. It is not for Wikipedia editors to be second guessing the fact checking of a source, that is original research.

What else am I missing?

If there is a clear consensus for inclusion of the material and no policy is being broken by its inclusion then continued removal of material against consensus would be treated as disruptive and would tend to indicate an attempt to advance a position. Obviously this is a highly polarized subject with supporters and detractors of the article's subject lining up to take sides but if editors on either side cannot distance themselves enough to edit an article with regard to NPOV then they should not be editing it at all.

If this cannot be resolved here then this really needs to be moved on to another forum such as dispute resolution, or it will end in another Arb Com ruling which will likely involve more topic bans. If editors want to be able to continue to edit in this area then they need to be able to work through and with their disagreements civilly and within guidelines or they need to find a completely different topic area. As it stands this battlefield of an article and talk page is doing to do nothing to attract new, neutral editors to even bother to get involved in reading, let alone editing, this talk page and article. If that remains the case then this situation will never get resolved. Mfield (Oi!) 04:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mfield: I think you summarized the issue well. That's what's happening. User:ProEdits has been edit-warring and removing the 'Daily Pioneer' source on the pretext that the article cites his name and hence its unreliable. In the Sathya Sai Baba article the section from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been written neutrally and Robert Priddy aka User:ProEdits name has not been mentioned anywhere in the article.
Also this source from the 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. When taken to the WP:RS board it was clearly mentioned that this source from 'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article and removing it is a BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba. Please see the discussion from WP:RS notice board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question
Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. A reliable source should not be allowed to be removed just because one of the activist has a problem with it because of his WP:COI. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep referring to the WP:RS discussion. You started it with the claim:

The dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff in this case Alaya Rahm "on the merits" of the case

That claim is patently false. Alaya Rahm requested that the case be dismissed. Dismissal is not based on the merits of the case.

For anybody who still thinks that Sandhya Jain is a credible journalist, here's an excerpt from one article:

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

This is so ridiculously inaccurate that I can't believe anybody reading it would ever trust the author again. Jain has completely failed to understand the Voting Rights Act, which was renewed for 25 years, rather than the claimed 10, and which doesn't do anything close to what Jain claims. Black people have automatic voting rights, period.

Given how ignorant Jain is, I think it is ridiculous for Wikipedia to include anything from this source in the article. Bhimaji (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

Bhimaji, The Alaya Rahm case was extensively discussed and was clearly perceived by the other outside wikipedians. There was no confusion or false claims. I am noticing that you obviously seem dissatisfied with the WP:RS discussion and their conclusions and are too often passing your personal opinions about this WP:RS discussion.
Discussions such as 'Criticism on Sandhya Jain' are more of personal opinion. Wikipedia does not give any credit to personal opinions. Your statement is like saying "CNN is unreliable source because Lou Dobbs - American radio and television host, who conducted the illegal immigration panel discussion in CNN was openly biased and hence CNN is unreliable".. These are personal opinions. This does not make the source CNN unreliable. The discussion about Voting Rights acts column also came up in the WP:RS discussion and it was well addressed. CNN is considered reliably sourced though it has a whole article criticizing it and same applies to 'Daily Pioneer'. Every TV viewer or reader will have some thing to say about the television host or editor of an article that does not discredit the reliability of the source. Every wikipedian editor will have an opinion - that's why we don't write wikipedia articles based on 'Original research' or personal opinions.

As MField mentioned above since the 'Daily Pioneer' was declared as reliable in WP:RS its not for Wikipedia editors to be second guessing the source that amounts to original research.

Certain things are very clear at this stage.

Daily Pioneer was repeatedly mentioned as reliably sourced and was accepted as reliably sourced in the WP:RS discussion.
Daily Pioneer article has important refutations to criticism of Sathya Sai Baba. Daily Pioneer has to be included if BBC is included leaving out the 'Daily Pioneer' alone will be a BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.

Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

Daily Pioneer was declared as a reliable source in the WP:RS and leaving it out while keeping the BBC source is a BLP violation and hence 'Daily Pioneer' should be included in the article as per the WP:RS discussion.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer may be a Reputable Source but in the article in question here the journalist has written from a very subjectively charged and partisan viewpoint. Consider these quotations:

“a lingering, insidious smear campaign”

“Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”.”

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM

"You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. "You have not given any source, as ther is none which states this. It is totally untrue.)”

Consider also the following wild suggestion:

"The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later."

And this bit of of sensationalism:

"Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!"

Her final exclamation: "Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink."

Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable? (See http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html) Ombudswiki (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

Where there any opinionated statements in the 2004 BBC documentary? - Ofcourse - there were several strong statements.
BBC documentary had dramatic dialogue and emotional statements building the 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba' slowly based on Alaya Rahm allegations. BBC documentary had very strong criticism on Sathya Sai Baba mainly projecting critics such as Premananda's views. The 2004 BBC documentary - reporter Tanya Datta was openly biased.

Some examples of strong statements from the BBC documentary criticising Sathya Sai Baba:

"His distinctive 1960s orange robes and Afro hairstyle make him instantly recognisable...." - Is this statement not opinionated?. Does it sound fair / impartial?

"He certainly has friends in high places, and throughout the scandal, his popularity has remained intact..."

"number of former devotees who have turned away from his teachings, claiming he has ruined their lives..."

"I remember him saying, if you don't do what I say, your life will be filled with pain and suffering." - dramatic statements and dialogues..

In the article Sai Baba: God-man or con man? by Tanya Dutta has the following strong statements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm

"Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich", he says of his bete noire ...

"But Brooke's allegations were dismissed out of hand by the tightly controlled Sai Baba Organisation..."

"He believes that the country's biggest spiritual leader, Sri Satya Sai Baba, is a charlatan and must be exposed."

Inspite of all these above opinionated statements and conclusions in the BBC documentary by Tanya Dutta - BBC is still used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article. The same people who complain about 'Daily Pioneer' - Sandhya Jain's opinions did not have any problems with the opinionated statements from Tanya Dutta presented in the BBC documentary.

As I mentioned above 'Daily Pioneer' is a reputed reliable source.
The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article.
'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article as per the WP:RS recommendation. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm complaining about Sandhya Jain's facts being false.

Can you explain to me what's wrong with the comments about Sai Baba's hair? Bhimaji (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For Radiantenergy:

Is this your idea of "moving forward? Your latest response fails to address the facts which I presented about this poor journalistic article, so your categorical proposals are irrelevant. Please transfer your opinions about the BBC documentary to the appropriate section. It is not under discussion here.

The contents of written or spoken evidence are important (here and elsewhere) and at some stage you will have to address them directly rather than bluster if you wish to convince your readers. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer source has already been discussed by outside editors. It was deemed appropriate for the article. The Wiki article on Sai Baba is fair and balanced. Why try and remove a source? Because its one article that calls out the "allegations" for what they are. Sbs108 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper is the Source. The quality of this specific Article is what I was questioning, with evidence. Please address that evidence, in particular the wild assertions and the apparent untruth about an alleged statement by Robert Priddy, denied by him in the Comments on the online article.

By the way, I would advise you not to use the name Sai Baba in public references to Sathya Sai Baba. It is ambiguous and its use may offend the millions of devotees of Shirdi Sai Baba, the original bearer of the name. Ombudswiki (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source Websites for Official Information on Sathya Sai Baba

Preamble: I venture to raise this important issue for a second time since it was summarily dismissed by User J929 on 20 August 2009 and smothered by subsequent filibustering on other issues. See [16]

It may be noted in this connection that User Onopearls commented on User J929's dismissal of my posting in these terms:

“there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions." I was shocked to read that. I would strongly suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, as you (and none of the editors or administrators I might add) have the right to dismiss the opinion of another editor, nor do they have to come to a "consensus" about the "validity" of another editors opinions. Onopearls (t/c) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)” See [17]

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-) www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division) www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos) (Of circumstantial interest: www.saibaba.com and www.saibaba.org, promote Sai Baba of Shirdi and have no connection with the 5 sites named above.)

All official information can be obtained from these sites, or from those run by branches of the worldwide Sathya Sai Organisation, which bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other sites which deal with Sathya Sai Baba from a devotional point of view (and there are increasingly large numbers of them), however big and popular, are unofficial devotee sites and, while the largest of them often relay much of the official information to devotees (e.g. the translated and edited Discourses), this is now available on the extensive official websites listed above, which should surely be the sources named in Wikipedia articles.

Since many of these unofficial devotee sites also promote a miscellaneous variety of devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility, I suggest they cannot be assumed automatically to be Reliable Sources from a Wikipedia point of view.

Would it not avoid problems, therefore, to avoid referring in this article to any unofficial devotee sites (except, perhaps, in very exceptional cases)? The three largest and most popular among devotees, all mentioned at some time or another in articles about Sathya Sai Baba, are: www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com, which, amongst a plethora of devotee information about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba, bhajans, etc., has a separate section devoted to attacking critics of Sathya Sai Baba.

To regularise the situation for this article and the several others about Sathya Sai Baba, I suggest that attempts should now be made to convert current references to these and other unofficial devotee sites to references to the 5 official sites listed above or to other Sathya Sai Organisation official websites. A singular proof of the disadvantages of giving devotee sites as citation sources is to be seen in one of the references in the new and controversial Prema Sai Baba article. (See the Talk page there for further comment.) Should I also take this case to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"This page is 114 kilobytes long."

When one edits the Sathya Sai Baba page, the following notice appears "This page is 114 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles..." Since Bibliography 2 has been added to the Sathya Sai Baba page, Wikipedia suggests "to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."

It seems space has to be optimised in order for a clear presentation of the page.

Is it possible to add the information from Bibliography 2 (now on the page itself) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba (Bibliography 1) or to the Sathya Sai Baba movement page?

i'd also suggest moving the "political row" section to either Sathya Sai Baba Movement or getting rid of it completely (as it seems to be alot of discussion for an event that happened almost two years ago)

another idea may be to remove the long syllabus after every 'Nagel, Alexandra' and 'Babb, Lawrence A.' reference in the 'reference section'. perhaps joining the reference so it only apperars once, or moving long detailed descriptions of books to the bibliography section.

any suggestions on how to proceed, as Wikipedia suggests "to split this article into smaller, more specific articles."

J929 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest moving back the Bibliography 2 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba (Bibliography 1) and just have the link in the main article. That will give enough space. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The present Archive is very long because of the inordinately long filibusters that have been conducted in it - to which both of you, J929 and Radiantenergy, have contributed a major part! Perhaps you could contribute to a reduction of the volume by being more succinct and more relevant in future postings.

As far as the Bibliographies are concerned, they are links in the bottom Template for the article, which is where they belong. What you could usefully do is expand the woefully inadequate Bib.1, add it as a separate section of the more extensive and better laid out Bib. 2, and rename the whole as 'Bibliography on Sathya Sai Baba' - leaving it where it is now, in the bottom Template - with a similar link on the templates of the many other articles related to Sathya Sai Baba.

It would not be appropriate or helpful to deny readers the chance of clicking the link to the suggested Bibliography on this subject by removing it to another article. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved "Further Reading" section to Bibliography 1 (and changed template). Message appears, "This page is 97 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." will try to link references...

J929 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Treat others as you would have them treat you

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

What is this latest suggestion for reliable sources when Proedits cites the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html . the site belongs to Barry Prittard, another Anti Sai Baba activist (http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/barry-pittar/)
Ombudswiki enquires, "Should I also take this case to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard?" that is the right forum for such discussions, or is there a reason you are asking?
Are you trying to improve the article or steer it?

In Brain Steel's (Ombudswiki) recent contribution to the wikipedia Reliable source notice board, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain and in a previous entry on this discussion page.
he states in reference to The Daily Pioneer being a reputable source,
"Consider also the following wild suggestion: "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later."" He states clearly that this statement by The Daily Pioneer is a "wild suggestion." However on his own website, http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/pparthivisit08.htm he talks about his visit to Puttaparthi in October 2008. Sathya Sai Baba's home town and abode. (On Robert Priddys website aka wikipedia editor, ProEdits... "Recently, Brian Steel returned from a surprise visit to Puttaparthi bearing a swag of documents and audiovisual material that, under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed would be perceptible to commonsense and reason." http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/ " On a surprise visit to see the ashram, Brian Steel discovered that things are not as they were in various respects. Not least, the gaudy propaganda venue, the Chaitanya Jyoti "museum" is undergoing 'damage-limitation' http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/brian-steels-secret-visit-to-see-sathya-sai-baba/ ")

Brian clearly dismissed the story by the Daily pioneer as "sensationalism" and yet he himself was the subject of the statement, "Key blogs in the defamation were robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com; briansteel.wordpress.com."

ex devotee...
infiltrated the ashram... ("secret visit")
intention of maligning Baba later..."under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed"

What kind of Lies are these ? how is this "good faith"? Then call someone else unreliable when they directly report on your activities, wasting time and effort of other editors. How does this help the article? Is this behavoir part of the "official" information you want other editors to adhere to?

Ombudswiki further states, "Her final exclamation: "Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink." Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable?" is your behavior capable of responding to her writing? your actions are now speaking much louder...

Puttaparthi is 3 hours plus from Bangalore, along dusty and bumpy roads. Not necassarily in the neighbourhood.

Why would Brian Steel spend the time, money and effort to go 3 hours (one way) and back to go see Sathya Sai Baba? (he visited the Ashram, Sai towers, " I adventurously chose chai and a toasted cheese sandwich in the small café in Sai Towers..." the museum etc...) How then can he claim that this statement is a "wild suggestion" in good faith that he himself went to Puttaparthi to gather information to further malign Sathya Sai Baba. Is this not a direct Lie on a wikipedia notice board and here on the discussion board? To what agenda are you catering to Brian? Other editors have to sift through information only to find your lies and propoganda.

In reference to social behavior, if one had a significant other, (boyfirend or girlfriend etc...) and the relationship ceased yet one of the partners kept slandering the other (ie frequent blogs ( http://briansteel.wordpress.com/ ) or making fun of them, ie "Sathya Sai Baba Video. Too Weak To Cut Birthday Cake" http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/ ..." he cant even cut a ribbon without help") then after some years goes back to others' place of residence and "brings back some swag" i would be in serious doubt of this person's social skills. In fact it is common for one party to seek a restraining order against another who propogates such behavior.

This is Wikipedia, not your website Brian.

Your lies and treating other editors with condescending tones, patronising remarks and "wild suggestions" ("you are wandering", " energetic and hasty", "you are looking for expressions of sympathy " etc ..) do not constitute "good faith" and only waste time and effort of other editors.

Barry Pittard states on his web site "Science or Sai-ence?" (http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/) i'd like to suggest the following, "Science or Sai Co."

J929 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Talk page is not the place for you to present your theories about Ombudswiki or ProEdits. Take it to their respective talk pages, and reply to the RS post on the RS noticeboard. Don't bring your arguments and theories about certain editors to the talk page of SSB, which is for discussing the man, the article, and information that directly pertains to either of them (the post above is obviously not about SSB or the article, so please don't argue that it directly pertains to either.) Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the Claim which links Sri Aurobindo and Sathya Sai Baba

At 07.20, 12 September, new User Hedmstr1 posted this explanation of a short new paragraph s/he was posting in the Biography section of the Sathya Sai Baba main article:

"Biography: I'd like us to find any quote from an official publication and/or scholarly paper or article on Sri Aurobindo. Would more documents from the Sri Aurobindo side be available to us?)"

In less than an hour User Geni had commendably removed this "in article commentary".

However, I believe the topic, which is part of the much wider and currently relevant subject of the different sorts of Claims made by Sathya Sai Baba, his associates and devotees, can still be profitably raised in these Discussion pages.

The paragraph posted by Hedmstr1 was: “It will be useful to obtain, inasmuch as they may have strong provenance, Sri Aurobindo scholars' statements on the exact situation that obtained with regard to Sri Aurobindo at that time. Of course, it is an article of faith that Sai Baba followers credit the words of their guru. Scholarship, however, will not stop short at this.”

To begin the discussion, and in partial answer to the request for information by Hedmstr1, these 2 comments are offered: 1. Copious information about Sri Aurobindo is available on at least 2 Wikipedia sites: Sri Aurobindo and Philosophy and Spiritualism of Sri Aurobindo.

2. For contributors to this article, an easy first step towards investigating the frequently made devotee and official claim that Sri Aurobindo announced the Advent of Sathya Sai Baba on 24 November 1926 would be to consult the book about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba written by Birgitte Rodriguez, a fervent devotee and a previous follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. On pages xix-xxxvi of Glimpses of the Divine. Working with the Teachings of [Sathya] Sai Baba, Rodriguez gives an introductory account of her experiences in the ashram of Aurobindo and The Mother and of her later meeting with Sathya Sai Baba.

On page xxii, she reports from an account of the event in the Aurobindo ashram on 24 November (which also needs to be read as context- see extract 1 below) and on page xxiii, she specifically denies the relevance of this pronouncement to Sathya Sai Baba’s birth – see extract 2 below:

1. "On November 24, 1926, Sri Aurobindo withdrew into seclusion to devote his life to his supramental Yoga … As Sri Aurobindo writes in his book, Sri Aurobindo on Himself, "It was the descent of Krishna into the Physical" which rendered possible "the descent of the Supermind" in Matter. It was this, in fact, that was the aim of Sri Aurobindo's Yoga." (There is over half a page more of this background, which can be quoted later, if requested.)

2. "In Sri Aurobindo on Himself [she quotes pages 136 and 137]. Sri Aurobindo wrote, "Krishna, … the Cosmic Deity, Master of the universe, … was the guideof my yoga and with whom I realised identity …X thinks I am superior in greatness, you think there can be nothing greater than Krishna: each is entitled to have his own view or feeling, whether it is itself right or not. … If you reach Krishna you reach the Divine; if you can give yourself to Him, you give yourself to me.” It should be quite clear from this quotation that what happened on November 24, 1926 related to Sri Aurobindo. Quite often Sai devotees take this statement by Sri Aurobindo to be a reference to Sathya Sai Baba who was born on the preceding day, November 23, 1926. It is an incorrect interpretation." For the record, Rodriguez regards Sri Aurobindo and The Mother as "Divinities". (See Birgitte Rodriguez, Glimpses of the Divine. Working with the Teachings of [Sathya] Sai Baba, York Beach, Samuel Weiser. 1993. ISBN 0-87728-766-X, p. xxii-xxiii.) Ombudswiki (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thank Ombudswiki for this information. It is a breath of fresh air to see that life exists aside from issues such as The Daily Pioneer and BBC, important though they may be. I again ask: are there any editors who have time and interest in other corners, such as the Aurobindo one. If it is true that there are two beliefs among Sathya Sai Baba devotees at large as to the status of Sri Aurobindo's claims, then such a divergence may properly be noted in the Wiki article. How do we determine, though? By hearsay? If I understand, Ombudswiki has raised at least one interesting instance: the Birgitte Rodigues book furnishes the case of a published, unequivocally pro Sathya Sai Baba author, who believes that Sri Aurobindo's reference was to his own form (and not to another form somewhere else). From one point of view (unless we had expected the publisher to have been prophetic if not omniscient as to apostates), it may be noted in passing that the Samuel Weiser publishing company is responsible for books of well-known Sathya Sai Baba devotees: e.g., Professor Samuel Sandweis, Howard Murphet and when they were devotees (a sign of the times?), Robert Priddy (ProEdits) and Brian Steel (Ombudswiki). Two questions: 1. Are there books or articles written by Sri Aurobindo experts which make it very clear that Sri Aurobindo referred unequivocally to himself. 2. Are there pro Sathya Sai Baba writers of published repute who have written from the standpoint of being able to guage something of the extent of a) Sathya Sai devotee belief and b) non-belief that Sri Aurobindo was referring to Sathya Sai Baba?

If these matters cannot be made clear via reputed sources, would contributers to the article be satisfied with the statement that: in general, some Sathya Sai devotees believe and some do not that Sri Aurobindo was referring to Sathya Sai Baba taking form, incarnately, as Sri Krishna, and that there is no conclusive evidence on either side?

In the meantime, one dearly wishes to see from yet others Ombudswicki's informative and detailed kind of response. Are substantive contributions such as his simply to languish unresponded to by other editors? Hedmstr1 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the preceding comment, here is some further background to the Aurobindo story.

There are two basic types of claims propagated about Sathya Sai Baba. His own explicit Divine claims have been recorded since 1953 in the much-neglected primary (or secondary) source of information about the guru, his Discourses. (See Bibliography.) The second type of claim is frequently found, not in the Discourses but in the vast collection of hundreds of hagiographical books and booklets about Sathya Sai Baba. These do not appear to emanate from the guru himself.

Typical of such special claims are those made and propagated by associates and other devotees about a number of alleged prophecies of the “Advent”of their guru. In addition to the Aurobindo claim described above, it is variously and repeatedly alleged in devotee books that the following are sources of prophecies of the birth of Sathya Sai Baba: The ancient Hindi Naadi Leaves, The New Testament Book of Revelations, the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, Nostradamus, and Edgar Cayce.

Typical of such claim propagation were the writings of the late Dr M.N.Rao, a retired high level Civil Servant who wrote four books about Sathya Sai Baba (widely read, particularly in India). In his 1985 publication (Sri Sathya Sai Baba: A Story of God as Man), Dr Rao adds this guarded comment to a five page section on the Aurobindo claim (‘The Descent of Divinity’): “There was no significant mention in his writings between 1926 and 1950 about Sathya Sai and his identity ...” (1990 edition, page 308). And, indeed, in Aurobindo’s writings and in that of his devotees, there is no mention of Sathya Sai Baba and his claimed Divinity. For example, in a book published by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press in 1973 (Sri Aurobindo, by Jessy Roarke), the important Descent episode is dealt with on pages 12-13 and includes this statement: “Finally, after the immense and untold labors of this biune divine manifestation, on 24th November 1926 the Overmind Godhead descended to the earth: not the Supermind as yet, but the next lowest manifestation of light and power, Sri Krishna preparing for the further advent” (page 12). And (on p. 13), “Formerly the Overmind was ascended to by a few great souls, but was not brought down. After he had brought it down, Sri Aurobindo retired most completely, the withdrawn Iswara who leaves his executive labors to his Shakti [The Mother]. […] He was now collecting himself in his mightiest yoga.”

In spite of this, the Aurobindo story and the other alleged prophecies have become a part of the official account of Sathya Sai Baba's life and Mission. The highly ornate commemorative Museum (The Chaitanya Jyoti Museum), opened in Puttaparthi in 2000, displayed a special section of exhibits depicting most of the prophecies. Among them could be seen the text and pictures which reinforce the devotee anecdote about Sri Aurobindo’s acknowledgement of the “descent of the Overmind” as “proof” of his acknowledgement of Sathya Sai Baba’s divine birth. Ombudswiki (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute protection

I am copying the following reply I gave to an editor on my talkpage as it includes comments that are relevant to all...

Hi, please note the following information in the dispute template "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Protection is implemented to prevent instability, it is not intended to protect one version or another of the article. It is clear that there is still no consensus on whether this contentious material is to be included, and that it needs to be discussed more completely. I am not espousing one version or another by protecting it at a certain revision, as that would imply that administrators are responsible for content which they are not. It certainly seems as though the recommendations of the RS noticeboard have not cleared the matter up, and policy is being quoted by both sides of the dispute. It looked like a consensus was clear the last time it was argued over but Crotalus makes some valid and reasonable points and this goes some way to balancing out the swing of the previous consensus to include. I really think that this dispute requires more impartial eyes, as it is clear that more that one party in this dispute has not only strong personal opinions on the article subject, but also a history of emnity towards other parties in the dispute. I am copying this response onto the article talk page as well.

Mfield (Oi!) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and BLP violations

Per our policy on biographies of living people, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Several editors have inserted negative claims about Alaya Rahm, a living person, sourced to this op-ed. Mr. Rahm has been accused of drug and alcohol abuse on the basis of an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and certainly not for something that reflects negatively on a private individual like this. Furthermore, verifiability policy requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues, especially not when she's cranking out howlers like this — for a specific debunking of Jain's claim that "America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote," see here. You can't cite an obscure op-ed to countermand the BBC, Daily Telegraph, and India Today put together — that is a classic example of undue weight. And Jain's material was given as much space as the other sources put together. Six citations in total! This is a farce. It has to stop — Wikipedia will follow WP:NPOV and other policies. *** Crotalus *** 20:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are based on the assumption that 'The Daily Pioneer article' is unreliable. You mentioned in the Reliable Sourced notice board that "The Daily Pioneer" is Op-ed article and hence its unreliable. That's not true.

The 'Daily Pioneer article covering the Alaya Rahm trial' by Sandhya Jain is not an Oped article. The 'Daily Pioneer' by Sandhya Jain was published in the 'Sunday Pioneer' on March 31st 2009. Its in par with other reputed reliable published sources like "Salon.com" or BBC.

An op-ed, is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. Sandhya Jain is a part of the 'Daily Pioneer's' editorial team. Here's the list of the editorial team from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/COLUMNIST/Column.html. The Daily Pioneer has a separate link for Op-ed articles here - http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html.

The arguments such as "Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues, especially not when she's cranking out [http://www.dailypioneer.com/190509/US-unequal-to-India.html" is ridiculous. Tanya Dutta in BBC documentary quoted "Sathya Sai Baba is a Mafia Man" - This is the most ridiculous and factually incorrect statement. Was BBC removed from the Sathya Sai Baba article for the above incorrect statement?.

If in other reliable sources we don't argue or discuss about the editor then why is 'Daily Pioneer' an exception? I don't understand why is this becoming discussion about Sandhya Jain inspite of knowing that Tanya Dutta who did the BBC had more incorrect, untrue and factual inaccuracies about the subject - 'Sathya Sai Baba'. If we distract and start discussing about the editors then we have to discuss every editor of the source like 'Daily Telegraph' or 'Salon.com' or BBC.

Alaya Rahm made allegations to the BBC documentary but in the following 2006 trial interrogation his allegations became questionable. This topic has already been discussed in detail in the earlier RS discussion. Important conclusions were made about 'Daily Pioneer article and the 2006 Alaya Rahm case in the earlier RS discussion.

Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.

Including the refutation to Alaya Rahm allegations from the 'Daily Pioneer' is very important as pointed by the earlier RS discussion. Removing it will be a BLP violation to the article subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? Do you know what quotation marks are? The BBC article said that Basava Premanand called Sathya Sai Baba a mafia man. If Premanand did, in fact, say that, then the BBC article is correct.

If the information in the Daily Pioneer article is so obvious, correct and important, why hasn't anybody else said it? Bhimaji (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji, Did BBC verify the facts? So what happened to factual verification and checking for inaccuracies? When it is printed in BBC - it only conveys to the world one thing - Pretty much what they said. Obviously this is a major error, incorrect and biased statement and BBC - Tanya Dutta should be held responsible for such statements and BBC must be removed as per your own earlier arguments.
Regarding your next question - why hasn't anybody else said it?. They already said that several times in the earlier RS discussion that 'The Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm trial is reliably sourced' as it is supported by the case links from 'The Superior Court of California Website'. How many more times you want them to convey this? Are you willing to listen if it is repeated to you again?
In this new case you did n't present the facts and the correct links and you have been writing your own wikipedia rules.
The earlier RS discussion the whole discussion was based on 'Alaya Rahm case' in the Daily Pioneer - here in the new discussion WP:RS so far has been very unproductive and its so huge neutral wikipedians are not even interested in reading through it. On top of it you started with a wrong link and totally distracted the subject. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandhya Jain is listed as a columnist. In newspaper terms, this often refers to someone who writes opinion pieces. Based on Jain's writings, that is clearly the case here. This is not a news article — it doesn't even pretend to be neutral and neither do Jain's other writings in the same paper. It is an opinion column. Therefore it is not a reliable source for factual claims about living people. You are also proposing that we go trawling through court records (primary sources) to dig up information ourselves, which is original research. If you believe that the charges against Sai Baba are unfounded, then you must find a reliable, third-party source that discusses this point of view. You can't throw in a poorly written opinion column just because nothing else backs up your views. *** Crotalus *** 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus - You seem be adding your own rules in wikipedia. Initially you said "Daily Pioneer is OP-ed" hence its unreliable. Then after I pointed that's a wrong statement then you said it is an Editorial piece hence cannot be used and after that was clarified. Now you are saying its a columnist view hence cannot be used.
Its very obvious that you are too anxious to disqualify this source at any cost. You started edit-warring in the middle of an on-going discussion openly showing your bias about this discussion.
Wikipedia reliability policy states "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted source material for themselves. That's exactly what you are trying to do above.
It also states that The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.
Your interpretation of Sandhya Jain source are your personal opinion.Above you seem to be interpreting the source "The Daily Pioneer" as you like to facilitate its removal.
You have n't mentioned a word about "Tanya Dutta" - factual inconsistancies and utterly wrong statements in BBC. If we start looking at editors instead of the source "Daily Pioneer" Or "BBC" then we must look at every source that way. Why is "Daily Pioneer" alone an exception to that rule? What about 'Michelle Goldberg' who wrote Salon.com? and the rest of other editors whose sources are quoted in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
In wikipedia other article when you quote a source like 'CNN' - then that's accepted as a reliable source and we are not going to be discussing about "Lou Dobbs" who covered the article. Again why is 'Daily Pioneer' an exception to all the wikipedia rules?
It could be argued that then every documentary is pretty much opinion based and must be disqualified. Tanya Dutta covered Premananda opinions and telecasted in BBC. That's the reason it is mentioned in the article. If we decide to get rid of opinionated article then we have to get rid of BBC which made ridiculous BLP violating statements such as "Sathya Sai Baba is a Mafia Man". Lets start first fixing that serious BLP violation in the article by removing BBC which made opinionated wrong incorrect statement in the first place. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask you a straightforward question and I expect an honest answer. What is your religious affiliation? Are you a follower of Sathya Sai Baba? I am asking this because I do not intend to argue with people whose minds are already made up. I believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue. Do you have a conflict of interest with regards to the subject matter? *** Crotalus *** 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind you about WP:AGF. It would be more helpful for the discussion if you address the real issues / questions I posted above rather than accusing me unnecessarily. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Per my comment below, it is my assessment there is more than one party that appears to have a major conflict of interest and should consequently not be editing this article. Strong beliefs and convictions, whether pro or contra the subject, preclude neutral editing whether or not the editor has ever been a member of the organization. If anyone is coming along with a strong opinion on the subject, and are trying to word the article so as to back up that opinion, then they should not be editing, simple as that. It is becoming clear that more topic bans needs to be put in place and enforced to prevent the continued use of this article as a means of forwarding personal agendas from both sides. I am not going to point fingers as that would be a decision for a committee but I would endorse a request being filed as it is clear that this is not getting anywhere and never will as long as editors are unable to put aside their preconceptions and personal on and off wiki experiences and grudges. Reliable sourcing is the gold standard in a BLP and all the arguing in the world about a single source just goes directly to prove how partisan and thus COI'd editors are on this subject. If there is significant doubt about a source then it should not be used, and if there are no other sources - especially secondary and tertiary - that back up and confirm what the contested source is saying then that itself speaks to the reliability of the original source. Mfield (Oi!) 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus, you stated "Sandhya Jain is not a reliable source on U.S. legal issues," thats seems apparent but that is not the issue here. it was only brought up by bhimaji, who forgot to write about what he posted the RS notice about.

The BBC has made alot of mistakes and has had to issue apologies for many of its employees. Is it a reliable source?

Crotalus, you further stated "that is a classic example of undue weight.", these allegations (and they are allegations, in that Sai Baba has not been proven guilty of any crimes, US law dictates "Innocent until proven guitly') against Sai Baba have been pushed by certain editors who promote the BBC documentary on their own slanderous and attack websites. "Undue weight" is also given in discussing an allegation that has never been proven (Innocent until proven guitly), and not to mention it has been over 5 years since that time. Is this in itself a BLP violation?

"Do you have a conflict of interest with regards to the subject matter?" Please note that the BBC documentary was originally deemed a BLP violation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question . If you "believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue", then you should note Editor ProEdits kept adding information on the BBC documentary to the Sathya Sai article after this. If the BBC documentary is not allowed (as its already been deemed a BLP violation) then this entire discussion is for nothing. i'd suggest looking into that issue before starting on this topic.

If you believe that to have outside interets in Sai Baba is COI, i would ask you to please state your opinion here . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:ProEdits .

it may be a good idea to address Radiantenergy's question directly rather than stating "What is your religious affiliation? Are you a follower of Sathya Sai Baba? I am asking this because I do not intend to argue with people whose minds are already made up. I believe that this decision should be made by those without a personal stake in the issue." If an arguement is sound, what does it matter that he/she is Muslim, Hindu etc... why did you side step the issue? Is you agenda to convince others or to approach this discussion with an open mind?

J929 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

J929: I quote from the above response to Crotalus:

"Please note that the BBC documentary was originally deemed a BLP violation [18]"

Can you please quote in full the parts of those labyrinthine submissions, mainly by Radiantenergy, which justify your assertion that the BBC documentary was deemed a BLP violation? The Question initially posed by Radiantenergy was: "What is a more reliable source for wikipedia article - TV documentary or Court verdict on the same issue?" I can find no consensus that the BBC documentary violates BLC provisions. I did see a recommendation to take the case to the BLP section. Was that done and is there a further reference? Or have I missed something here? Ombudswiki (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You missed the main parts of the discussion - the discussion is not arranged in order by dates. I have added important conclusions from that discussion in correct order for quick reference. Initially RegentsPark proposed that it should be taken to the BLP board. Later it was followed by more discussion stated below.

Comments by Jehochman (Administrator)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned that "Alaya Rahm was covered in the Daily Pioneer article by Sandhya Jain". Then the discussion was about the reliability of the source "The Daily Pioneer article by Sandhya Jain".

Comments by RegentsPark(Administrator) on the BBC material

I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly (not necessarily the hyperbole though) since you also have the court dismissal as a reference. The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were the central to the documentary? If they were central to the documentary, then my blp monitor says that it is better not to use the material at all. If not, then it depends.

Comments by RegentsPark made about Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain

"Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was followed by recommendation from Priyanath.

Final Concluding remarks by Priyanath:

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

The 2 sources mentioned by Priyanath above are the "Daily Pioneer" and the "Alaya Rahm case links from the Superior Court of California website".

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I still do not understand your claim, Radiantenergy. You select a few quotes from other contributors to the debate but not, as I see it, a clear decision of condemnation. What about the following contributions to that debate? Have they been discounted? Did you apply to the BLP "tribunal" as suggested?

Selected QUOTES from the discussion:

….. [part] Finally, note that this board is mainly for determining whether a specified source can be considered reliable for a given statement. Broader and more complicated issues are better handled at the article talk page or through RFC's. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, My points numbered 1 and 2 in the earlier posts were just factual comments for your information. Can you address my questions about sources in points 3 and 4 ? Specifically: • Can you provide links (if available) to the Danish documentary and the Dail Telegraph article ? • Is there any secondary source (besides the Pioneer opinion column) that post-dates the case ? Lets try to simply list and analyze the reliability of sources on this board. Abecedare (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with abecedare that this is better taken up on the BLP noticeboard. At a simple level, both sources (BBC as well as the court verdict) can be considered reliable. The BBC source for saying that there are allegations of sexual abuse and the court verdict for saying that, at least in the case of Alaya Rahm, these allegations were found to be untrue. Assuming, of course, that the two sources use more or less the language that I'm using. I think this is more a matter of what it is appropriate to say on a blp. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points: • The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true". • The case is listed as a "PROPERTY DAMAGE - OTHER" case on the court website and is a civil case; I am not sure whether the alleged sexual abuse was even the (direct) subject in the case. The above two points demonstrate why it is a bad idea for us to try and interpret primary legal documents (which we haven't even seen!). I would advice against mentioning the case or its dismissal in any article, unless we have a reliable secondary source talking about it. Note that the BBC documentary pre-dates the filing of the lawsuit and I don't think it mentions the case at all (please correct me if I am wrong on the last point; I haven't read through the transcript or watched the documentary). As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the highest standards. A TV documentary on BBC would normally be considered a reliable source, but if subsequent information brought a source into doubt, I think we would disregard the original source. A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources? Jehochman Talk 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I find your convolutions confusing. Maybe others do as well. Please clarify all of this. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ombudswiki, User:Abecedare posted those questions. You are copying comments from the earlier part of the discussion. Then those points were discussed. Then later it was followed by the comments by User:RegentsPark who also replied to Abecedare's arguments which I have already posted above.
Please look at the time and date. I have already showed you the later comments and conclusions by RegentsPark and the final conclusion by Priyanath agreed by every body.
Please don't expect me to copy the whole discussion here.
The Earlier RS discussion was very clear. That was a good discussion completely analyzing the situation.
The case was discussed correctly by independent wikipedians and clear verdict was passed which was agreed by everybody. It must be respected and implemented. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TLDR. I am not going to waste time plowing through these huge walls of text (most of which appears to be copied and pasted from previous discussions). Unless someone has something new to bring to the table, I believe I have already made my position sufficiently clear. *** Crotalus *** 13:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to read the earlier RS discussion and comments by other experienced outside wikipedians who judged the source 'Daily Pioneer' in all its aspects and also the central theme 'Alaya Rahm case' covered in the Daily Pioneer. Then your judgement of the source 'Daily Pioneer' is going to be insufficiently incorrect. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus, your opinion does not weigh more or less than other editors involved. Its one opinion. There is no absolute regarding this source. Someone had complained about the source and it was taken to the RS board. The majority of neutral (unemotional admins) deemed the source suitable for the Wiki article on Sathya Sai Baba. I respect your opinion but that does mean I agree with it or think it is correct. There are valid arguments on both sides. The question is what is the best decision given all the circumstances, rules, points of view, past history, specificity to the article. The source alone has to be looked at as a whole. The source in question is only used in two paragraphs. It has important factual information about the Alaya Rahm case. It also contains the fact that Sai Baba has never been charged,convicted or proven guilty of any crime whatsoever. This is very important information given the baseless charges the supposedly "respectable" news agencies were making.Sbs108 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With reference to Radiantenergy's posting of 12:19, 24 September (responding to my post of 07:01, 24 September, I sincerely apologise to all other readers of this seething morass of argumentative detail but I must ask Radiantenergy just one more time to provide convincing quotations to prove what he says in his much-repeated assertion that the case about this particular article was definitively resolved in the forum he cites as his authority to demand the recognition of the article as a Reliable Source.

Refresher QUOTE from Radiantenergy: "The case was discussed correctly by independent wikipedians and clear verdict was passed which was agreed by everybody. It must be respected and implemented."

I simply cannot detect this “clear verdict” nor the agreement of “everybody” in the text of the long discussion to which he refers us. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ombudswiki, We already had this discussion before. You had mentioned earlier part of the discussion - initial questions and I had already posted the counter arguments and the final conclusion in the RS board. Please look through the last part of the comments and conclusions added by me here from RegentsPark and Priyanath statements - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=315846070. I had arrranged them by dates.
RegentsPark repeatedly mentioned that the "Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain" as reliably sourced. Some of his statements: " I think that the daily pioneer source can be assumed to be reporting the facts of the case correctly ..", "Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm...".
The final conclusion after this long discussion was posted by Priyanath - :::* To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
The 2 sources mentioned by Priyanath above are the "Daily Pioneer" and the "Alaya Rahm case links from the Superior Court of California website".
There was a clear verdict in the earlier RS discussion. It must be upholded by adding back the 'Daily Pioneer' references to prevent any further BLP violations to the subject - 'Sathya Sai Baba' as per the earlier RS recommendation. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Once again, what a surprise. Everyone needs to go an read 3RR again as a couple of editors went way past that and have consequently been blocked. The article is fully protected for 3 days. Make sure that you discuss this matter BEFORE making changes to the article. It is not sufficient to post a message on the talk page and then go ahead and make a change which is likely to be controversial. It is necessary to wait a reasonable amount of time for other editors to engage and discuss, especially when the change made gets immediately reverted. With all the history of this article everyone should know better and the edit summaries clearly display that editors knew that they were engaging in an edit war.Mfield (Oi!) 18:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-reputable source references for deletion

I suggest that since the current Notes 7, 45 and 51 are sourced to 3 non-reputable sources run by the same person, the references (not the brief material) should be deleted. In trying to delete the reference to Note7, I messed up the code, for which I apologise, and so have just temporarily Undone my proposed change. However, I would like a more code-savvy person, preferably an Admin, to examine those three references and delete them if they agree with me.

While on this subject, technically, Notes 35 and 142 are referenced to an unofficial devotee source and, in my opinion, are not reputable either. (The material itself seems OK but needs a reputable reference.) Please examine these as well. Thank you. Ombudswiki (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

hey, i added additional sources where necessary.

(please note, #35 was exaclty the same discourse as in the Sathya Sai Speaks archives, considering accuracy and accounatbility)

what is note 142 now? as the source numbers have changed.

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not surprising that the numbers have changed. You yourself (J929) have just added three new references! One of these is from a non-reputable devotee site: saibaba.ws. Please remove it and replace it with a reputable source.

Because of the changes you have made, the Note numbers of the sources I claim are unofficial and non-reputable are now:

7, 46 and 53. These link to 3 of the many similar sites connected to the same person, who was involved in protracted Wikipedia controversies over this article two or three years ago.

And Notes 36 and 145 for the 2 references to an unofficial devotee source similar to the one you yourself have just quoted.

Logically, these numbers will keep changing as you or others add or subtract references.

I repeat, since you had difficulty in understanding what I wrote, it is not the content I am disputing in most of these cases but the named source. Sathya Sai Baba's speeches, for example, can all be referred to via the official sssbpt (Books and Publications Trust) website or by reference to the printed volumes of Discourses. Ombudswiki (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have finally managed to delete non-reputable reference 7. The other two will follow when I figure out (or someone tells me) how to do it without upsetting the code. BTW, I have also noticed a few more non-reputable links to unofficial devotee sites that have been creeping into the article. More another day. Ombudswiki (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the numbers will, and did, change, so i asked. clearly list the source rather than the (changing) reference number "You yourself (J929) have just added three new references!" why are you restating it?
"I repeat, since you had difficulty in understanding what I wrote", considering its your 'opinion' ("However, I would like a more code-savvy person, preferably an Admin, to examine those three references and delete them if they agree with me), i wrote, "#35 was exactly the same discourse as in the Sathya Sai Speaks archives, considering accuracy and accounatbility".
"it is not the content I am disputing in most of these cases but the named source" ? if the context is good then the content is good, if the context is wrong then the content is wrong. This is wikipedia policy. In your opinion then, are you in conflict with wikipedia policy?
Co-operation doesnt entail agreement. Taking into account, no one has confirmed if the sources are indeed reliable or not, have you made any effort to co-operate with other editors as to remedy any 'potential' problems. it may be a good idea to wait until something more than your 'opinion' is secured. J929 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation is quite simple.

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation

www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation

www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division)

www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony

www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos)

(Interestingly, www.saibaba.com and www.saibaba.org, promote Sai Baba of Shirdi and have no connection with the 5 sites named above.)

All official information can be obtained from these sites, which bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other sites (and there are huge numbers of them), however big and popular, are unofficial devotee sites and, while the largest of them often relay much of the official information to devotees, they also promote a lot of unofficial devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility.

It would avoid problems, therefore, to avoid referring in this article to any unofficial devotee sites. The three most viewed, all mentioned in this article, are: www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and the sometimes controversial and partisan sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com

To regularise the situation for this article and the several others about Sathya Sai Baba, attempts should now be made to convert current references to devotee sites to references to the 5 official sites. A singular proof of the disadvantages of devotee sites as citation sources is to be seen in Reference 6 of the very new Prema Sai Baba article. (See the Talk page there for a further comment.) Ombudswiki (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki,

Please begin the "attempt" "to convert current references" to "all official information". You are correct, "The situation is quite simple."

i'm more than happy to help you with the coding.J929 (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

J929, I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter but please consider what compliance with your request would entail for me. You are asking me to spend a great deal of time providing guarantees for points which others have added to the article. That is not my responsibility since I did not contribute the points in question. The necessary detective work should be carried out by those persons, or other editors (like yourself), who believe strongly that points at present referenced to unofficial devotee sources should remain in the article. My only inclination, in protecting this RS principle, would be to remove the references and any points which seemed inappropriate (as in the Prema Sai Baba article. Others might then wish to remove the (newly) unreferenced points themselves if official references were not found within a reasonable time frame. Ombudswiki (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions. nor is there any agreement among wikipedia administrators. the first step is to see if the sources are reliable or unreliable (other than your opinion).

i have twice offered to help with your 'edits' and twice have seen sarcastic and childish responses. you have offered nothing new to the article yet sit back in your armchair-anthropologic-style of editing.

"please consider what compliance with your request would entail for me." ?

J929 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus among editors of the validity of your opinions. I was shocked to read that. I would strongly suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies, as you (and none of the editors or administrators I might add) have the right to dismiss the opinion of another editor, nor do they have to come to a "consensus" about the "validity" of another editors opinions. Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I note your reaction and wonder whether your implied dismissal of my several earlier detailed contributions of suggestions for further textual study on Sathya Sai Baba by editors (Love is My Form, etc.) means you are not interested in reading this missing material.

Following this hiatus, I once again offer for consideration by other editors and readers my posting (15 August, 05.41) on official and unofficial websites and other sources.

I also take this opportunity to reiterate my suggestion that non-RS references from this article and from Prema Sai Baba should be deleted. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the words 'false smear' for 'false smear campaigns' because the Asian Voice author did not lable the campaigns as such. Her article was contested and Al Rahm complained about the libel against him in it, but the editors refused to allow any comment. This is shown from the following materialsd which were refused, which refute soundly the imaginative and baseless reports that were posted there. Ashok Bhagani promised that the BBC documentary would not stand, but his complaints to the BBC weere rejected without him litigating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEdits (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First the quote is from the article published in the "The Pioneer" and not from the "Asian Voice" article. And also the reference you had used http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk - is one of those negative attack sites banned by the second arbitration and cannot be used anywhere as a valid reference for this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"All around the world" is a too general statement. I have substituted "various parts of the world". Kletchby (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"failed smear" is removed from "failed smear campaigns" because it is a tendentious characterisation by the author of this edit of what The Pioneer actually wrote. It referred to a specific campaign within India. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProEdits (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits, The word "Failed Smear Campaign" clearly summarizes what the Pioneer article is talking about. Its very clear that you are trying to push your Point of View and unnecessarily edit-warring. Please read through WP:POV policies. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer article begins with an entirely false statement about me, Robert Priddy. The alleged article stated: "On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. I have never written any such thing in any blog, basta! In promoting this lie by the Daily Pioneer, this entry is chiefly an insidious extension of Gerald Moreno's massive highly visible web agenda to assassinate my character without any reliable evidence.Therefore this particular Pioneer entry is a most unreliable source so I am removing itProEdits (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Pioneer is very reputed source. Wikipedia reports what reputed sources report. Even in the WP:RS notice board discussion it was agreed that Daily Pioneer article is reliably sourced. You cannot simply remove a source from the Sathya Sai Baba because your name is mentioned in that article. That's POV pushing. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy completely avoids the issue in accordance with his agenda of attacking me, trying to make out that I am simply complaining about the appearance of my name in the article. If he can prove that the statement on the Pioneer article about me is true, then it would be a different matter. But he cannot because it is entirely false! Therefore this particular article is UNRELIABLE as a source, whatever others may have opined about the general reliability of the Daily Pioneer on-line. Why was my rebuttal under comments to the article not included? Here is it:

"Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. You have not given any source, as there is none which states this. It is totally untrue.

Besides, Sathya Sai Baba was charged with sexual abuse, in 2002 a petition was made to the Supreme Court of India but it was thrown out by judges in a blatant protection of the guru." Therefore I feel entirely justified in removal of this article.ProEdits (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your material is banned from this article.You maintain a web site which tries with great effort to slander Sai Baba. You have in the past added your own long rants to this article. The quote about yourself is not in the Wiki article. There is already enough in the article about the allegations and given their negligible impact on the subject, lack of a any proof or any legitimate case against Sai Baba, they should not be expanded. Sbs108 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sbs108: What material of mine is banned from this article? What are you getting at? Please try to make sense. I observe that you are colluding against me with Radiantenergy and J929 in disrupting my edits, most likely since neither of them will or can reasonably answer my reasons for removal of the badly researched Daily Pioneer article. I maintain a dissident website where I expose the many dark sides of Sathya Sai Baba - with very extensive documentation, that is not 'slander'. Still, the matter is irrelevant to the Daily Pioneer Article, which makes an initial totally false statement about me and hinges the entire article on this. The lie about me is so central to the article as to make it a totally unreliable source. It is based almost entire on Gerald Moreno's untruths about me on his websites etc. which were banned from Wikipedia in a separate decision to the one banning him unanimously from editing by 6 administrators.

I remind that there is a Wikipedia policy on 'No Original Research' to the Pioneer article. Wikipedia states:

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. The policy provides some tests to determine whether or not a publication should be considered reputable.

Is it openly partisan? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?"

On all these counts the Daily Pioneer, which is only available in an on-line version (i.e. is not 'The Pioneer' printed newspaper) is clearly unacceptable. I shall not let this matter rest until I have obtained justice. Hence new removalProEdits (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On an unreputable source article: As its title indicates, the Asian Voice newspaper has a focus on the Hindu/Gujarati community in London and Leicester. Circulation unknown, but was around 11,000 the last time it was audited a few years ago. The young journalist, Miss Payal Nair, shows in her wording that she has no expertise regarding Sai Baba or the controversy and she only reports unproven and often patently false gossip (eg. that John Lennon and Clinton were among his famous followers. Totally undocumented!). It is an obscure publications highly contentious claims and was first used by SSS108 (banned Gerald Moreno) to try to rebut criticisms but without any kind of proof that either the newspaper has good editorial control., not least since it reports mostly mere opinions of Sai devotees (eg. the disproven claim by then UK leader of the Sathya Sai Organization, Ashok Bhagani :"when devotees are selected by Sai Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room". Bhagani claimed to know - without the slightest evidence or proven investigation - that the sex allegations (of which over 30 testimonials by young men have been published) "are completely factless and baseless". The bias comes through initially by referring to the BBC "sought to rake up this controversy once again". He has posted the text etc. on two of his web sites and one blog, all of which are banned from use on Wikipedia by an Arb.Com. ruling. As such this material falls far short of qualifying as a reputable source by Wikipedian standards. ProEdits (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits - Most of your arguments are filled with only personal opinions. In Wikipedia personal opinions are not given any credit. This is neither a discussion about SSS108 nor a discussion about Payal Nair. Your arguments such as claiming "Miss Payal Nair, shows in her wording that she has no expertise regarding Sai Baba or the controversy and she only reports unproven and often patently false gossip" - again are your personal comments and wikipedia does not care about your comments or other's personal opinions. In Wikipedia we publish from reputed source. The source 'Asian Voice' has already been discussed before several times in this talk page as well as in the WP:RS and was accepted as a reliable source.

Here's a quick summary about Asian Voice Newspaper:

Asian Voice Newspaper has been serving the British Asian community for 35 years.
Asian Voice newspaper with the highest circulation among the Asian community in the UK is widely read amongst 650,000 people of Indian origin all over Britain.
Asian Voice newspaper is in its 30th year of publication.
According to the publisher's own statement, Asian Voice is the: "First and foremost Asian weekly in Europe...In terms of circulation, Gujarat Samachar and Asian Voice are the largest such publications outside India. In the UK, we are the only member of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) in our sector."
Asian Voice Newspaper also organise the Asian Diversity Awards. Recently in the House of Commons, UK - “International Entrepreneurs of the Year” was awarded to JetAirlines Founder Goyal and voted by the readers of the Asian Voice.
Asian Voice Newspaper also has an electronic version epaper catering to the internet community. Here's a news link from Asian Voice - http://epaper.asian-voice.com/AV/AV/2009/06/13/ArticleHtmls/13_06_2009_002_001.shtml?Mode=1.

This source has already been extensively discussed in WP:RS notice board and was accepted as reliable source. Stop deleting this source from the article. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching the interchanges on this page, I cannot but note that it is a very one-sided discussion. ProEdits' comments - which strike me as sound - have been consistently ignored by his opponents (Radiantenergy, J929, and Sbs108).Out of fairness, I think the Daily Pioneer report, which which I have checked, is definitely unsound and I cannot find any blog where ProEdits (Priddy) has written what the paper claims. Secondly, in regard of 'original search', I find no indication that the (presumably online) Staff) in the case of the Pioneer article have evidenced any reporter contact with the source in question, the 'Australian Current Affair' producers of the television channel NineMSN.Thirdly, does the language, very atypical of reputed journalistic sources in many parts of the world, jell with that reputability for which 'The Pioneer - in its hard copy version has been noted by Wiki admin and others? Do the fiery, very unguarded language and the absence of hard facts square with a sampling of 'The Pioneer' - the off-line newspaper? Are offline and online reputabilities on a par? Whatever, the answer, I think removal of this poor and badly edited article, which reputed journalistic standards would surely avoid as running risks of defamation, is called for.Hedmstr1 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The degree of POV pushing by the trio RE, J929 and Sbs108 to keep a non-reputable article on the encyclopedia has spread - with massive repetition - over diverse notice boards and talk pages) without appreciable rational argument. The article by Sandhya Jain has been shown to be factually unreliable on its main introductory assertion (false statement about a Priddy blog which does not even exist), and subjective in most of its content. It is not even a news source, and it is highly inaccurate, making,as I have pointed out in /reasons for deletion. The article throughout is well below the standard even of the tabloid press in general. It makes false assertions,ignoring the world wide documentation from reputable sources such as UNESCO and the US State Department and numerous world class media such as the BBC, DR, India Today, Times of London, Daily Telegraph, Salon.com, The Guardian, The Age, Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen,CNN,and others. For example, the statement that opinion smearing ex-Sai Baba devotees by a gossip columnist, Sandhya Jain. This is far removed from serious debate. If it is allowed to remain on-line, Wikipedia will be further discredited showing it to be unable to control those Sai Baba people who act together in a cultlike group way to avoid dialogue, repeat endlessly their POVs and try to skew contents to zealous ends.Hedmstr1 (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument sounds straight out of the web site of Robert Priddy. Its about the reality of the allegations which have amounted to nothing. Why are you upset with two tiny paragraphs with a reputable source in India? The mention of the allegations in your "world class" media amounted to a blip on the screen and yes they are mentioned in the Article. The real POV pushing is you who will not allow a counter claim. Stop accusing us in bad faith. If we were not here this article would turn into the personal web site of Robert Priddy as it has more than once in the past. If you want me to dig out his edits, I can do that and you will see no "soundness" I can assure of that. The article is fair and balanced as it is. Please stop the accusation of POV pushing. Lets face it.. the real reason you don't want the Pioneer is because it calls out the lies and the ridiculousness of the "allegations" against Sai Baba, that is the only reason. What is there to dialogue, Sai Baba is free and innocent and no proof has been given of any crime. He is not convicted in any court of Law, there is no current case anywhere against him. All your sources have been mentioned in the article. News agencies can not convict people. Sbs108 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557285/Other-BBC-apologies.html

[2] ttp://express.lineone.net/posts/view/68155/BBC-apologies-for-tasteless-radio-prank-

[3] ttp://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/sport/horse-racing/bbc-apologies-to-grand-national-winner-treadwell-1700584.html

[1]

[2]

[3]