Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Chaitanya Jyoti and Sanathana Samskruti

In the section about the ashrams two different museums are presented as one. The first museum is Sanathana Samskruti or Eternal Heritage Museum which was built in 1990. It is devoted to different religions and is sometimes called the Museum of All Religions. The second one is Chaitanya Jyoti Museum. It is devoted exclusively to the life and teachings of Sathya Sai Baba. It was built in 2000. http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/pages/ashraminfo/interested_places.htm Could those editors who supervise this section make necessary corrections?--Open 2 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

I have decided to start a new topic as I cannot see that Rumiton really understand my point about primary and secondary sources. As I see it, according to the Wikipedia rules primary sources are of restricted use and the article should not rely on primary sources. Rumiton believes that primary sources are unacceptable in principle. Rumiton believes that published SSB's discourses are a primary source and cannot be used in the article . I believe they are a secondary source for SSB's words and are very reliable to see what his claims were but very unreliable to take those claims for being true. Even if they are primary sources they can be used in the descriptive manner as it is formulated in the Wikipedia policy. And from this point of view published discourses of SSB can be used to check other secondary sources.

Here is an example. In the discussion section "Sathya Sai Baba's claims of divinity and avatarhood" the first quotation is the following:
I will be in this mortal body form for 59 years more and I shall certainly achieve the purpose of this Avatar, do not doubt it. (that means that he predicted his death in 2019 at the age of 93) 29.09.1960 Sathya Sai Speaks v.1 http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/sathyasaispeaks/volume01/sss01-31.pdf (see the very end of the discourse)

But in the article we have the following statement:
Sathya Sai Baba had predicted that he would die at age 96 and would remain healthy until then. Babb, Lawrence (1986). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 166. ISBN 1577661532. http://books.google.com/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC. "His present incarnation, he says, ... He will die at the age of ninety-six, but his body will stay young until then."

How would you suggest solving this contradiction? Would you discard SSB's words based on the words of Lawrence Babb or vice versa?
--Open 2 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just write over 90 years old. (Of course, there is an explanation behind the discrepancy and I think Robert Priddy has written about it. I have my own opinion about it.) Andries (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not how to write it but which source is more reliable. In my opinion, officially published discourses are the most reliable source for the actual SSB's words and everyone can refer to them and check. I don't know what the source was for Lawrence Babb's statement. It is quite unprobable that he himself heard that from SSB. Rather he read it somewhere or was told it. As the third party he is much more reliable in his analysis of SSB than SSB himself because SSB had a special interest to promote himself. But when it comes to the exact SSB's words, the published discourses are much more reliable, I think.--Open 2 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are going far beyond the job of a Wikipedia editor. If you want to write a book on Sai Baba or any other subject based on your original research, then go ahead and do so. If your book gets published and you establish a reputation in the field then you may be accepted as a reputable source, but until then you will have to rely on the other accepted sources that we already have. For example, neither you nor any of us know which version of that prediction is correct, it is just speculation. Maybe on this occasion the translator made a mistake (SSB never wrote or spoke in English), maybe SSB mumbled and was misheard, maybe he rethought it later and made a different prediction or retracted what he had said. The point that will not go away is that we are not qualified to write an analysis of the subject based on selected (by us) quotes. Lawrence Babb is. He has a track record of accurate and well thought-out commentary and a reputation to lose if he gets it wrong. We do not, we are anonymous editors. So, unless he is proven wrong on an important point, we stick with his version. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Babb was an anthropologist who studied the SSB community in New Delhi. He wrote down popular beliefs. One such belief was that SSB had said that he would die at 96 years. Babb is no expert in the claims by SSB. Andries (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No source is perfect, but they are still better than us, trying to interpret primary material for ourselves. Rumiton (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not consider this an important question. I understand that the age of death of 96 comes from the popular book by Conversations between SSB and John Hislop. This was a private converstation. Andries (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rumiton, I cannot agree that the quotation from officially published discourse where SSB predicted the year of his death is a sort of interpretation. After some consideration I do agree with you that the selection of quotes by me cannot be used for analysis or interperetation because I am not a reliable source, as an editor. You may think of some vested interest of mine to make this selection. But with regard to SSB predictions (as his exact words) I still believe that his officially published discourses is the most reliable source. Your argumentation about SSB's mumbling or being misheard does not work here. Because while his discourses being prepared for publishing the editor in the ashram took responsibility to check and clarify all doubtful words and inconsistencies. And he had a reputation to lose if he got it wrong and even to lose a position. So, I think he must have been much more accurate than Mr Babb.--Open 2 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just start a new thread/section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.Please link there to this discussion. I can personally think of more important other issues for this article than this one. Andries (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant by You may think of some vested interest of mine to make this selection but no editor is qualified to interpret a subject's written or spoken words, especially when the issue is contentious, and especially when there are a number of good, scholarly sources who have already done so. We would be trespassing on territory that is not ours. If you can not accept this, then Andries' suggestion is the best one. Take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Rumiton (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The thing is that Sai Baba's disciples also named 96 as the age at which Sai Baba would die, e.g. here or here and many others. So it's not a question of an outsider (Babb) making a mistake versus the presentation within the movement. --JN466 10:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy & criticism/response

I notice that the criticism and controversy section, which had been significantly longer, is now a few sentences long, while the response remains much longer. Why was that? I understand that the controversies didn't cast SSB in a pleasant light, but cutting it down to "The Vancouver Sun in 2001 reported that Sathya Sai Baba told his adherents not to browse the Internet due to allegations rapidly circulating on various Internet websites and in a few newspapers. In a 2000 public discourse, Sathya Sai Baba said, "These teachings (the Vedas) are highly sacred. Today people are ready to believe all that they see on television and internet but do not repose their faith in the Vedic declarations. Internet is like a waste paper basket. Follow the 'innernet,' not the internet."" seems inherently biased when compared to the much, much longer "response". I remember when the argument for a response section was made, and the key argument seemed to be that the criticism section was quite long, but the opposing view was not being covered. With that no longer being the case, the section is pointless; said criticism is non-existent outside the critical views section on his claimed miracles. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The allegations were deleted by a devoted IP on 25 October. [1]. I have restored them. Rumiton (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Times explains gold watch illusion

[Prime Minister] Rao's contacts with swamis have brought him embarrassment more than once. In 1993, he seemed moved during a visit to his native state of Andhra Pradesh when a well-known guru, Sai Baba, appeared to produce a gold watch out of thin air. But Indian newspapers had considerable fun at Mr. Rao's expense when film of the event that had been taped by an Indian state television team was played back in slow motion and revealed the Mr. Baba had employed sleight-of-hand techniques commonly used by magicians.

— John F. Burns (October 10, 1995). "India's 'Guru Busters' Debunk All That's Mystical". New York Times.

There are many good videos and documentaries on his magic tricks. When observed closely they are not even performed particularly well, but certainly well enough to fool anyone who isn't a magician by trade (or just extremely observant). If it was just magic tricks then fine, but he tricks people into believing he is like a god .. and worse. These videos of Sai Baba explain it well :

• Documentary on Sai Baba - includes some abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWmDcvZ3l48

• Magic tricks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yblhsr1O4IQ

Zarkme (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all original research. We can only report what reputable secondary sources have said about the subject. Rumiton (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Image

I think the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sathyasaibabafloat1946.jpg might need to be changed, with due respect for the present beautiful image. Sathya Sai Baba I think, is more known for love and sacrifice. For a person who wants to know about Him, I think that is the impression this page should try to create. Here is an image I found on the internet http://www.saibaba.ws/quotes/swambending.JPG Also, I think some where in the page there should be a well known close up photo of Him, like this one http://www.bharatwaves.in/portal/uploads/original_sathya-sai-baba_4d933cb89bdf2.jpg

Ramprasad N (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sai Baba is known for a number of his actions and qualities. If you look through the archives, for example here [[2]], you will see that this issue has been discussed at length. The problem apparently is that no cameras were ever allowed around the subject, so no privately owned pics exist. The only pics around are copyright of the Associated Press, so cannot be used, or the Sai Baba Society, likewise. This pic is old enough to be usable. Rumiton (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections starting to grow again

I have been involved in this article for a very long time. It was stable for over a year, all parties agreed on the version. Its starting to go negative again. Again the legacy of Baba is secure, all criticism and accusations are unproven. They should be in the article but a small part. Times of India which is a reliable source did a huge spread on the good works of Baba. This will be used in my future edits. This article has been through many edit wars and arbitrations. That's where it seems to be going again unless people stop trying to grow the criticisms again which again are unfounded, unproven and mentioned only in a few sources dating from 2000-2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.234.38 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of this man before reading the wikipedia article. That being said, the 3 references provided for the 1993 assassination attempt seems to check out upon reading them. Why do you keep removing this section that seems to be well documented? Toasty (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Criticism

This section needs clean up. I'll look for a reference by I'm pretty sure that 'The guru and his followers consistently denied the charges of misconduct, which were never proved.' is not valid, he only addressed this issue a couple of times in public and then was generally unfazed by any criticism as is referenced by this quote:

'Sathya Sai Baba publicly responded to the allegations on 25 December 2000:

"Some people out of their mean-mindedness are trying to tarnish the image of Sai Baba. I am not after name and fame. So, I do not lose anything by their false allegations. My glory will go on increasing day by day. It will never diminish even a bit if they were to publicize their false allegations in the whole world in bold letters. Some devotees seem to be perturbed over these false statements. They are not true devotees at all. Having known the mighty power of Sai, why should they be afraid of the 'cawing of crows'? One should not get carried away by all that is written on walls, said in political meetings or the vulgar tales carried by the print media."[148]'

I think we need to clean up this section as well for neutrality. Sathya Sai Baba was generally unaffected by any criticism and continued to carry on his work regardless of such critics. Also 'A second common response was that even if some of the allegations by critics were correct, they simply lacked the vision to understand things in their correct spiritual context, or were failing to understand the meaning of lila, Sathya Sai Baba's divine play.[143]' doesn't seem neutral. This was not an offical statement by Sathya Sai Baba or his organization but just non peer-reviewed theories. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

India Today Special Edition "DIVINE GRACE: SATHYA SAI BABA"

I think when we are writing for India Today which published some unfprtunate misunderstandings for Sathya Sai Baba we should also include the Special Edition published by India Today this year 2012. India Today has done various researches and contacted many world famous scientists and colected the proof of genuine miracle and divine aura and powers of sathya sai baba and then published this Special Edition which had a record breaking sale this year around Febuary. I think wikipedia should include this also because it contains all the proofs as well for SAI BABA's Love, sacrifice, and Aura around Him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.211.244 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find it on their website. What you say sound quite unlikely because how is the India Today magazine going to reconcile a positive article with the extremely serious accusations that they have levelled at SBB in their 2001 December 2000 article "A God Accused". See http://indiatoday.intoday.in/ Andries (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

May be it was a sponsored edition which cannot be used as a source for this article. Andries (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are references to this magazine:

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZdhCiSN7KM
• http://sathyasaipath.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/news-availability-of-divine-grace-sathya-sai-baba-magazine/
• http://indiatoday-divinegrace.blogspot.com/2012/01/india-today-divine-grace.html
• http://www.ssso.net/pnews-2012/pnews-jan12.htm

But as there are no formal references on the internet it might be hard to use this as a source 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From those links it appears to be a sponsored edition, in other words essentially a self-published source. WP:RS only allows reliable, third-party sources. 86.44.193.39 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that this is not an sponsored edition but India Today publishes its Special Editions quaterly and that is not given on their websites. Moreover due to its maximum sale thay have also printed its Hindi edition "Eashwariya Kripa sathya SAI Baba" So this is not an sponsored edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.226.53 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary (and also academic) coverage of the BBC documentary, Rahm trial and much more

I see that knowledge of Tulasi Srinivas' extensive work on SSB was missing around here. Besides his 2010 book which I've added to further reading, he also wrote a chapter in India Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic, vol. 2. Both cover the sexual healing/abuse issue in appropriate depth: p. 615 in the encyc chapter, and quite extensive in the full book, including devotee responses pp. 16-18, 229-234 and 252-293. If you want to cite the Rahm trial result (while avoiding the Daily Pioneer op-ed), it's on p. 252. This should put to rest the wrestling over the documentary/news sources over this (BBC and Daily Pioneer) which has consumed extensive if not downright excessive space in the archives of this talk page, RSN, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a good source on this particular topic, I vote we include exerts from this book on this topic in this article. Though its authority in other matters (such as it's presentation and justification of oiling allegations as having occured when the organization has clarified that such slander does not occur is simply the work of Anti-Sai activists) leaves much to be desired on its overall authority. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add that Tulasi's chapter on the controversies surrounding SSB was particularly well received in the h-net review [3]: "Among the strongest material in Winged Faith, where the ethnographic materials and theoretical interventions come together and offer an altogether unexpected analysis, is chapter 5, “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, and Power.” Srinivas introduces in some detail the “scandal” of four men’s deaths in SSB’s private ashram quarters. She outlines what is known about the 1993 “June incident” and then allows her interlocutors to speak for themselves. [...]". There are numerous other academic reviews of her book: doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01374_22.x doi:10.1007/s12115-011-9492-x (by Bryan S. Turner - praises it as an "excellent study of modern religious charisma"), doi:10.1093/jhs/his024, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2011.01698_28.x, doi:10.1111/j.1748-0922.2011.01543_5.x, etc. Her book also gets quoted extensively in this fascinating article on 'Guru Logics', which classifies SSB as among "type 1 gurus, whose appeal is critically dependent on the miracles they are said to perform". Tijfo098 (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT A TRUE SPIRITUAL LEADER

He was just a FRAUD, that's ALL. He did not mind people calling him "God", when he was NOT God.-59.95.21.211 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Some call Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Jesus frauds, too. Does that make them any less leaders? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Leader or fraud or both, it doesn't matter what we decide to call him. It is all about what reputable sources call him. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing treasure trove in personal chamber found some time after death

What is missing in this article is that a lot of valuables were found in his personal chambers some time after his death. See e.g http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/AndhraPradesh/Treasure-island-Sai-Baba-s-gold-trove/Article1-710596.aspx Btw, I regained rights to edit this article in September. See [4]Andries (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Consolidating Critical Examinations with Criticism and controversy

It's very redundant to have to sections on the same topic. I propose to consolidate them into into one section. Please voice any approval or disapproval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One section is dedicated to his miracles (his main claim to fame). The other to other controversies. I do not think that they should be merged, but only renamed to make this clearer. Andries (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be some overlap (they both reintroduce and reference the BBC documentary, etc) and if they were left as two sections they should at least be trimmed to reduce redundancy. Also from Sathya Sai Baba's talks and this article itself his main claim to fame would be his service projects, not his miracles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.220.110 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking at the article now, it hardly even mentions Sathya Sai Baba's miracles outside of these sections. It looks much like a relic of much older versions of this page prior to arbitrations. In essence the section is now a response to nothing and now looks to introduce new ideas. I think it should definitely be trimmed and consolidated to avoid redundancy. Sathya Sai Baba's main claim to fame were the work of his Organization and his reach in his service work. My two cents :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.220.110 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, these should be merged and trimmed, there's a break in flow of ideas in these sections currently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.65.49 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and begun consolidation as discussed. I noticed that this section is probably much bigger than it needs to be. There's a lot of quotes and repeated information that could easily be summarized and collapsed. Essentially the same points of view by the same group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.220.110 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we can consolidate further - e.g. instead of referring to each instance a magician accused Sathya Sai Baba of sleight of hand, we can simply condense it into one sentence like "over the years x,y and z magicians accused him of sleight of hand" and have references for each of these that readers can follow up on. Right now this section is still too verbose and repetitive when it could be straight forward and more to the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A Shame

This is absolutely the worst article I have ever seen. The fact that people have time to distort realities on Wikipedia says a lot for our world. Wikipedia is what you get when the uneducated public and those with agendas create an encyclopedia. comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk

Do you have reliable third party sources for your assertion that Unesco later apologized for their motivated withdrawal? Andries (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This might be one: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/UNESCOapology.jpg, http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_02/05March01/03_Spiritual_Blossoms/02_Reflection/reflection.htm, http://www.sai-fi.net/sathyasaibaba/UNESCO.html#unesco_1. An easy way is to check their archives and see if it was withdrawn. I couldn't find this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I think that none of these sources are third party reliable sources. They are too closely related to the subject i.e. all written by people who are adherents or at least in the case of Gerald Joe Moreno very sympathetic to the movement. In contrast, here is a third party reliable source that describes the Unesco withdrawal, written by Michelle Goldberg in salon.com. http://www.salon.com/2001/07/25/baba/ Andries

And by the way, even if you can find a 3rd party reliable source for the withdrawal of the Unesco withdrawal then I think the withdrawal of the withdrawal should be stated as such, not just completely omitted. Andries (talk)

Andries, can you clarify the above? I can't figure out who is talking to whom. Has something been accidentally deleted? Rumiton (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

rumiton, the discussion is about this [edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=534019257&oldid=533709614] Andries (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing: movement is Hindu

I do not know any scholar who denies that the Sathya Sai Baba movement is Hindu. I think that this article should reflect this. Andries (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not denying is not quite the same as affirming. Does the organisation itself claim to be Hindu? Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several scholar who described the movement as Hindu. I do not know any who denies it. The movement does not like to see itself as Hindu, but instead asserts that it is interfaith. May be this should also be discussed regarding Nicolás Maduro at Talk:Nicolás_Maduro who is now listed as Catholic and a follower of SSB. Andries (talk)

The Roman Catholic Church officially does not accept that it is possible to be a follower of SSB and be a Roman Catholic at the same time. One priest (Mario Mazzoleni) who was quite vocal about his faith in SSB was excommunicated. I guess in practice it will be different for people who are not vocal about their faith in SSB. Andries (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you have removed the Catholic reference from the Maduro article and called him a Sai Baba Organisation member. This is starting to sound like original research, and I see BLP problems. Unless you can find a very good source to describe this possible dilemma of faiths, I suggest you self-revert. Rumiton (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

SSB movement adherence for Nicolás Maduro is sourced to the New York Times, so that is well sourced. I could find no sources for adherence to the Roman Catholic Church so quickly. Sources probably exist in Spanish, but I cannot read Spanish. Andries (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In this article, if you have good sources I see no problem with citing them as to the connection between the SSBO and Hinduism. Rumiton (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just spent an hour reading English sources and it seems probable to me that he is not a Catholic at all. One poor-quality source claimed he was a self-described "non-Catholic Christian," which seems rather likely. At the moment he seems embroiled in a dispute over the incapacity of his boss (President Chavez) where Maduro is somewhat in opposition to the Catholic Church, who are not happy with the way the succession is being treated by the government, including V.P. Maduro. Best we leave the article the way it is until someone with Spanish language access can clarify it. Rumiton (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite so in my opinion. Sai Baba was born a Hindu but regularly spoke about teachings from all major religions. Additionally, he promoted interfaith ideals and his organization's very own symbol is composed of all the world's major religions, promoting his idea that his movement is not bound to any faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Scholars write that devotees generally do not see the movement as Hindu, but as interfaith. I will add that too (copy from the movement article).Andries (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is another can of worms - my 2 cents. Hindu philosophy is inclusive by its own belief system. It considers all philosophies to be equal and valid and belonging to it. If Sathya Sai Baba, his followers, his organization, and his teachings all state they are interfaith and not tied to a particular religion - a line like that would be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A line like that would follow Wikipedia standards that says that articles should rely on reliable 3rd party reliable sources. Your or my personal opinion does not matter. Andries (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the well-sourced WP article Hinduism grants absolute and complete freedom of belief and worship. Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity. So Sai Baba was certainly a Hindu, but then again, so is Pope Benedict. The whole subject appears moot. Rumiton (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. What if people are forced by others or in practical matters to make a choice. Or confronted by others with logical conbtradictions between one religion and the Sathya Sai Baba movement. SSB adherents do not give much importance to logical contradictions. Religions can also divide people. Andries (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I admit that this is a personal opinion, so irrelevant, but at least let us write down what the best sources available have written which is not devotees about SSB, quotes by SSB, devotee books about SSB, SSO website about SSB etc. I had at least improved the article but was reverted with a reason that I do not understand when looking at Wikipedia policies. 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your changes it seems a bit weird. You took out quotes FROM Sathya Sai Baba about his beliefs and teachings to devotees. Why? Moreover in doing this your change seems like its more about the movement than Sathya Sai Baba himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the section is about beliefs and practices of devotees, so yes it is about the movement and should be about the movement. Andries (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Still - WHY would you take out quotes from the individual himself? A bizarre move, especially as this change has been debated. He was the head of the movement - you should at least have his instructions to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia requires 3rd party reliable sources. Quotes by SSB can be moved to Wikiquote. 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Andries has it right. The subject's words are a primary source. We could all be made to look like suporters of just about any belief if our words were selectively quoted. We need to see what reputable sources have said about our beliefs. Rumiton (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sai Baba's death

The article says,

"Sai Baba had predicted that he would die at age 96 (96 years based on lunar calender or 85 years based on roman calender)and would remain healthy until then."

Where is the citation Baba had predicted his death based on the lunar calendar? As far as I know, this version has been devised by his devotees after his death. Please remove the sentence in the brackets if there is no source for claim that Baba was talking about the so called 'Lunar calendar'. JK (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it anyway JK (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead problems: choreographer, musician

I have big problems with the lead. He did not become famous as a musician, choreographer, poet, or educator. Nor did he make his money with it. He was a a guru, religious leader, godman, and miracle worker. Let us stick in this controversial case with~the best sources available i.e. peer reviewed sources. E.g. with the writings by Lawrence Babb. At the moment I do not remember exactly what Babb wrote, but I can look it up.

"musician, mystic, composer, choreographer, poet, author, orator, miracle worker, philanthropist and educator."

I am not motivated any more to discuss this extensively or to come up with dozens of sources to back up my statement. I also believe that one excellent source (Babb) in this matter should suffice. Andries (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am of course aware that Narayana Kasturi wrote in his hagiography (in the literal original sense of the word, not just an uncritical biography) that SSB played music well, made choreographies, and made poems, but again Kasturi is not a reliable source, nor is a reliable biography available anywhere, as Babb wrote. Andries (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point - though poems and recordings of Sathya Sai Baba singing his songs and compositions have been released and distributed via various media. Also - his philantrophy is stated in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepvybez (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If the description is not reliable, please remove it per the BLP policy. JK (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References by Divine Grace, Sathya Sai Baba by the India Today Group

I do not think that "Divine Grace Sathya Sai Baba" by the India Today Group is a valid reference for the list of followers or anything else for that matter. The reason is that this seems a special, sponsored edition, which is admitted on websites associated with the SSB movement. I cannot find it this edition on the website of India Today. By the way, India today has been generally been very critical towards SSB. See e.g. the article 'A God accused' from 2001.

The list of followers should be in the article Sathya Sai Baba movement, not in a biography of Sathya Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unesco withdrawal again

Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_17#A_Shame. I plan to re-insert the Unesco withdrawal in the following way "In September 2000, Unesco withdrew its support for a conference in Puttaparthi with the stated reason that it is “deeply concerned about widely reported allegations of sexual abuse involving youths and children that have been leveled at the leader of the movement in question, Sathya Sai Baba.” "<ref>http://www.salon.com/2001/07/25/baba/ 2001 July 25 Untouchable? Millions of people worship Sai Baba as God incarnate. More and more say the Indian guru is also a pedophile.By [[Michelle Goldberg]] in [[Salon.com]]</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8471134/Sathya-Sai-Babas-death-triggers-fight-for-his-5.5-billion-empire.html 2011 April 24 Sathya Sai Baba's death triggers fight for his £5.5 billion empire by [[Gethin Chamberlain]] in [[The Telegraph]]</ref>
See http://www.salon.com/2001/07/25/baba/ by Michelle Goldberg and salon.com
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8471134/Sathya-Sai-Babas-death-triggers-fight-for-his-5.5-billion-empire.html by Gethin Chamberlain and The Daily Telegraph Andries (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about these sources, Andries. The pedophile thing has been well documented in the article already, and these articles seem to be just snide repetitions of the established allegations. They both seem pretty much "lowest-common-denominator" reporting, using tricks like representing humorous word-play by the subject (the baa-baa thing) as evidence of serious imbecility. I would rather see any new sources represent a more rigorous approach, and provide us with new evidence, rather than piling on the old stuff. Rumiton (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I only want to re-add the UNESCO withdrawal, not repeat the whole sexual abuse allegation. And I think the Salon.com and the Daily Telegraph are widely accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia. We could take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Andries (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They are probably acceptable for the UNESCO withdrawal of approval, but all the other content, which makes up the great majority of the articles, seems to me snide and gratuitous. Can you find no other references for the UNESCO-related info? Rumiton (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I could not find other sources so quickly. I disagree with your assessments of these two sources, but that is not so important now, because my intention is only to re-insert the Unesco withdrawal. Andries (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look myself. The UNESCO archives only go back to 2003 and don't go into much detail anyway, but I also found some evidence that the UNESCO letter of withdrawal was rescinded. [5] This is a primary source, which is unusable (and may even be highly dubious), but every facet of this subject is a mess of conflicting opinions and interpretations. Which is why I think to avoid endless warring we should stick with the best and most neutral sources. Rumiton (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about neutral sources. I think we should use reliable sources. I am no longer prepared to spend hours of time looking for the best sources when acceptable reliable sources are available. Andries (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but I think if you go ahead and use biased sources to support the (fact?) that UNESCO withdrew their support, you will be opposed by people who want to use their own also biased sources to say UNESCO later withdrew their previous denunciation. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no sufficiently reliable sources that state that the UNESCO later canceled the withdrawal. Andries (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just don't want to watch another giant poop fight develop here for something of marginal value to the article. I suggest you think about it, and do what seems best. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton here Deepvybez (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rumiton, SSB did say, the ba ba sheep thing and there is no indication whatsoever that SSB meant it as a humurous wordplay. It is in wikiquote. Mentioning this is not a sign of bad or biased reporting. This quote which was also treated in the scholarly German book by Katharina Poggendorf-Kakar "Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi". Publishing house Dr. Kovac. (Btw, I have very much mixed feelings about the book, in part because of the often Freudian theorizing.) Andries (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Srinivas' Winged faith book revisited

Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_17#Secondary_.28and_also_academic.29_coverage_of_the_BBC_documentary.2C_Rahm_trial_and_much_more

This book is an ethnography, trying to describe the organizations and the beliefs and practices of devotees. It is not an attempt to describe historical events accurately, nor is it investigative journalism. Srinivas explicitly writes that she is not very interested in the sexual abuse allegations, as I read with google books. So it is not a reliable source for the sexual abuse allegations.

In addition, both devotees and former devotees, who, as nearly every reader of this talk page knows, rarely agree about anything, agree that the book contains many factual inaccuracies, so I would rather not use it for this article. I have not read the book. This does not mean that I agree that the book is flawed, but the focus of the book is not on things that most (former) devotees consider important. It may be better suited for the Sathya Sai Baba movement.

Btw, I personally agree with Srinivas that the oilings of the penises by Sathya Sai Baba cannot be reasonably denied. It happened to thousands of young men (who generally did not experience this as sexual abuse). Andries (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts after reading some of the book via google books, I have to agree with other (former) devotees that the book contains many inaccuracies. For example, Srinivas states on page 10 that SSB has held tens of thousands of discourses. This number is far too high. Andries (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Hi the photos seem a bit dated on this article. Would photos from: http://sathyasai.org/pictureinfo/barrygallery.htm suit Wikipedia's fair use policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.218.132 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps even from: http://sathyasai.org/pictureinfo/perfectform/perfect.htm or http://sathyasai.org/pictureinfo/collection1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.218.132 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know why this didn't get answered before, but any usable photo has to be uploaded into Wikimedia commons with a statement by the copyright owner that releases it for public use. I understand nearly all photos of the subject are owned by the Sai Baba Society, and they have not released them. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Kalam a follower?

See my question at reliable sources notice board. Andries (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150#Dr._Kalam_follower_of_Sathya_Sai_Baba.3F. Andries (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is, there are many videos as well. OwnDealers (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Institutions, organisations and projects and Life sections

There seems to be some overlap here - I think we need to look at either consolidating or making the sections more distinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Final end of edit wars

I am so happy to see that the near constant edit wars some of us older editors saw has finally ended. We can all agree that SSB was a controversial figure to say the least, and only by working together can we ensure that the page is presented in an unbiased, neutral light. Kudos to the progress that has been made! Onopearls ^(t/c) 07:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

AB Vajpayee's letter

Hi, is there a reference for AB Vajpayee's letter defending Sathya Sai Baba? The current reference is a dead link. The below text can not be verified otherwise and shouldn't it be deleted?

signed the following statement: We are deeply pained and anguished by the wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We would normally expect that responsible media would ascertain the true facts before printing such calumny – especially when the person is revered globally as an embodiment of love and selfless service to humanity. Since this professional ethic has not been observed by a section of the media, we have elected to go public with this signed statement '' Changeisconstant (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This statement already talked about and verified for inclusion a while back - only thing is that the original scanned image is now a dead link. There are other references still in circulation via a simple Gooogle, one of these could be used to replace the dead link. http://www.saibaba.ws/images/letter_pm_india.gif, http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/images/FeatureArticles/collapse-of-calumny/pm-letter_01.jpg, http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/images/FeatureArticles/collapse-of-calumny/pm-letter_02.jpg, http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/sathya_sai_baba_living_legend.jpg. Quote referenes: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fline/fl2810/stories/20110520281002600.htm. Also referenced by critics: http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ssbresearchnewfactors.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the references you quote are primary ones. However the Hindu reference is good to be used. Thank you. Changeisconstant (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up of poorly sourced content

I have removed all the content (mainly the charitable works section) which had many subsections cited only to primary sources. Those sections just get swelling and were merely echoing what websites, devoted to him, mentioned. If I have overlooked something or removed some properly sourced content, please point it out. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is to what extent was he himself involved in charitable works and organizations? In many cases this answer is unknown, so the contents should be moved to Sathya Sai Baba movement. It is however undisputed that he inspired other people to do charity and that many institutions bear his name. Andries (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We may need to look at the titling in the institutions, projects and works section - I think some of the subsections need to be added back eg "Water supply projects", etc otherwise it looks like they are all classed under medical institutions. Deepvybez (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If any content which is notable (...reported by reliable sources) can be found, then of course, it should be put back. The content which I removed was most probably not notable and was only mentioned on the topic-related websites, which does not count. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant just the headings relevant to the content currently there - not the content you took out. Right now there are water projects classified under "hospitals and medical care" - they should be classified under the original "Water supply projects" sub heading otherwise its misleading Deepvybez (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for pointing that out...think I fixed it now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth expanding in lead

Okay, I've noticed another thing here; there is quite a large "controversy" section yet there is not much of a mention of it in the lead (other than just mentioning were a source of both fame and controversy)...is there a link to previous discussion/consensus? (I couldn't find any...), I think it should be added. Thoughts? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the Sathya Sai Baba movement should be mentioned in the lead, not the Sathya Sai Organisation. Btw, (unrelated to this SSB article), the Sathya Sai Baba movement article needs updating, especially with regards to finances and events after SSB's death. I was until now the ony substantial contributor of the Sathya Sai Baba movement article. Please help. Andries (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"money laundering, fraud in the performance of service projects and murder" - I don't see these in the references provided - do we have any sources for this (otherwise it should stripped from the criticism section as well)? Also if these allegations are included in the lead it should state that none of these claims were ever substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.124.71.226 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 October 2013‎

Thanks for pointing that out, indeed some of it only were alleged by some, definitely not in lead. Let's keep the content to the minimum, if we need to expand it, then the whole lead needs to be redone and the article as well (since it's currently poorly sourced, badly arranged and lot of extra content belonging to sub-articles). I don't have access to Palmer, Norris W. Baba's World so can't say much there. Why should the other sentence be removed? there is proper referencing for for each example.

"...several prominent politicians, lawmakers, celebrities and other noteworthy individuals voiced their support for Sathya Sai Baba and disgust at such claims." doesn't sound neutral to me. Let's cut the redundancy and keep it clear and concise, adding 'unproven' before allegations is pointless, and further adding that messes with the WP:NPOV balancing scale . -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from "Baba's World" - "Shri Satya Sai Baba is not -without his critics. While a number of detractors see him as little more than a harmless fraud, duping naive masses by sleight of hand, others have leveled charges against him that are much more substantial", the source continues to list these and also concludes that the truth of these allegations isn't "easily substantiated". If you are including this as reflecting the "controversy and criticism" section you should also include that these claims were never proven as these are from the same sources used in the criticism. It's not an unbiased view as it leaves out the other half of information. "...several prominent politicians, lawmakers, celebrities and other noteworthy individuals voiced their support for Sathya Sai Baba and disgust at such claims." this is sourced from the same sources, as well as material such such the Indian PM's official letter, etc. If it needs to be trimmed fine but I think it still needs to be presented in the lead if you're including the allegations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.218.132‎ (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 October 2013‎

Palmer is a fine scholarly source, though with a limited scope (focusing on beliefs and practices), but it is only one of the very few who have accused SSB of murder. It would be more accurate to say that he was accused of being an accomplice to murder.(I understood that some devotees even knew this, but found it okay because they believed that he had ordered or consented to have demons like Ravana killed!) In contrast, there are dozens of reputable sources that accuse SSB of sexual abuse and I think that should go hould do in the lead. Andries (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Andries: you have been a regular contributor here for long, if you feel the lead is not okay please make the necessary edits/suggestions. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, true, but I was also topic banned for a long time from this article. I am still hesitant to edit it again and esp. the lead. Officially I am still only on probation.Andries (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that if the lead includes the extra sentence about allegations, it should include the fact these allegations never were proved. Using http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/25/thousands-line-up-for-last-glimpse-of-indian-guru/ as a source from Pulitzer Prize winning UT San Diego, this should be expanded to "He further faced accusations over the years of sexual abuse and fraud - accusations he denied as smear campaigns." Possibly including "and were never proved" from already included ref http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13204914. This keeps it concise for a lead while reflecting the facts in entirety. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Allegations are by definition not proven. I will make a proposal for the lead but I have no hope that we can come to a compromise due to my experience in the past. Andries (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets discuss the statement as even a little strong wording may affect it, since it is going to carry a lot of weight. Also, we need input from some more users, if we are attempting to settle this once and for all, we obviously need more community participation; I've posted on the Wikiproject India noticeboard. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed statement template—feel free to edit it

"He further faced accusations over the years of sexual abuse and fraud—accusations he denied as smear campaigns."

Agreed statement template—feel free to edit it

"...and were never proved" not sure about this, feel it's a bit extra and redundant, I don't think we should establish this with certainty. Besides, adding this will make the need of adding the points about things like that BBC documentary for further clarification, and then again opposing points for counter-clarification and so on...that's why lets keep it to the minimum. Andries, why don't you modify the template as you see fit? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, One more thing i have noticed is the entire controversy and criticism section have been moved to rock bottom of the article as if they do not have relevance and considered as least important. Are there any wikipedia rules regarding where certain sections can be placed? Aren't controversy and criticism a lot more important and have much larger public interest than something like architecture of sai baba's buildings? I request the controversy and criticism section be moved up the page. Lookinhotbra 12:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs)

I've replied to you, check the talk page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Would having the wealth stored in his personal vaults be considered under criticism? Breadinglover (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A tricky question. Some sources state that he claimed to be an ascetic and to have renounced personal wealth, but I would say a source would be needed to note this apparent discrepancy for us to include it as criticism. Original research otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Maybe someone with closer knowledge can take a look at it. Could you assist me with the Swaminarayan related articles. I will try to get help from Ugog Nizdast. Breadinglover (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Swaminarayan? Indian "spiritual" articles can get very toxic, but I'll take a handful of antibiotics and have a look. Rumiton (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't see any great problems with that one, apart from my understanding of Mahasamadhi, which is that it is final and irreversible, which does not seem the case there. It reads promotionally, but seems well sourced. Rumiton (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

May be here is a source in the respected Hindustan Times, but it is an editorial. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Editorials/Floating-above-the-fray/Article1-1113733.aspx (The existence and value of a very private treasure trove was far worse than even I expected.) Andries (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As an editorial its very very POV - taking facts listed in the sources for page (religious gifts having value were found; Sathya Sai Baba had a will stating all possessions given were under protection for the trust) and applying the editorial writer's personal opinion as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.29.47 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is not so much whether an editorial is POV because they are supposed to be POV but whether an editorial and especially this editorial can be used. The fact that you do not agree with the editorial is not important, because Wikipedia is built on sources. Andries (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see anything usable in that editorial, or in similar opinion pieces. The author puts forward a straw man argument (Godmen who amass vast amounts of cash, which then gets used for decidedly non-spiritual ends) then expresses his personal sense of outrage at their behavior. There is no evidence that SSB used the money and gifts for any purposes other than developing his temples and charities, is there? He barely left India and didn't seem to live richly, though he certainly accepted the adoration of many thousands. Also the abuse allegations were never proven, and probably now never will be. I can't see any new information here. Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on, he could have done with the cash in his private quarters anything that he wanted. Nobody knew what he did with the cash. If he used everything for charity then why kept he so much in his private quarters? So much cash in his private quarters is at best very suspect. There are some sources that state that he used the money away for sex (prostitution). I will add the following to Wikiquote that is relevant

From Guru Purnima Discourse, July 3, 1993, Keep Truth as Your Aim http://www.saidarshan.org/baba/docs/d930703.html

"The Sathya Sai Central Trust would never be burnt by fire. The trust is so sacred. Every naya paisa is spent in the correct way. We know that. The world does not know that. The Central Trust members have been working in a selfless way for the last twenty years. They bear their own expenses for their travel and lodging for any work to proceed to Delhi, Bombay or Madras, whereas elsewhere the Trust members claim for their T.A. and D.A. Sathya Sai Central Trust members live in such a sacred way.[...]

You should also know clearly how the money is drawn from the banks. All these twenty years no cash is drawn from the bank. Every thing is drawn by way of cheque. We have Institute teachers. We are not giving cheques to teachers. Their salaries are credited to their respective accounts in the bank. They are so strict. Therefore, we are sacred and we do not expect noise fire. This body is 67 years old. Swami never stretched His hand at any moment. What is the reason? You will certainly get what is required if you have good feelings either in India or abroad. There are no people who are ready to do that. There will be no dearth of money if you are prepared to do. Therefore, a single naya paisa is not wasted. There is no scope in our trust for any one to draw money. Every cheque has to be signed by two. Every cheque has to be signed by Swami and then only anybody can sign it. People say crores and crores are mismanaged. This is utterly false. We do not touch cash. If anyone is prepared to deposit cash, the bank manager and Central Trust member and person depositing the cash are associated in the transaction before the money is accepted.'

Andries (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you can see that innuendo (...he could have done with the cash in his private quarters anything that he wanted) and suspicion (...so much cash in his private quarters is at best very suspect) aren't usable unless a source looks at the allegations and finds some substance to them. The primary statement you provide about not accepting cash is original research. If Sai Baba used cash for sexual jaunts, and if evidence of that is found and reported on, then first the media, and then Wikipedia will be all over it. Until then, it isn't all that impressive (though I agree with you personally; all that stashed wealth doesn't look good). Rumiton (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The editorial says that the cash in his private quarters tarnished his image. And I think that that sentence can and should be added. Andries (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that as the Hindustan Times article is pure opiniation, it would be better to get at least a second source saying that his image was tarnished. See also the discussion with Breadinglover at the start of this section. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton - this is a combination of a straw man / personal outrage / personal outrage projected as mass facts. In the section of the article which addresses the release of his will the possessions are addressed to some extent - he had appointed himself as a trustee of any gifts. Agree it was probably not good to just let these things sit there unused and gather dust but this editorial is a pretty unreliable source for anything other than showcasing one individual's (the author) venting. Deepvybez (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at the editorial again - "but what did tarnish his image was the vast quantities of wealth that were sought to be transported out of his ashram after his death". It brings up rumours about people who had access to Sathya Sai Baba's room after his death - that there were allegedly people who were trying to take these possessions - and projects the acts of these individual as tarnishing Sathya Sai Baba's image. It doesn't seem to even mention in its highly opinionated way that having these items in his home is what tarnished his image, only that the people transporting these goods somehow did. Doesn't make sense to begin with. Deepvybez (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I had overlooked that. Andries (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How do keep this article from being vandalized from supporters from the Sai Baba group. I have been researching Swaminaryan sect of Hinduism and when any thing regarding criticism is posted, my friends and I were attacked by a swarm of bees (members of the group). Do you have any advise?

Bluespeakers (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy

I think this part needs to be looked at:

"Abraham Kovoor took on Sai Baba's famous claim that he had "materialised" a Seiko watch, the only specimen of which was in a Tokyo vault, before the Japanese head of the company. Kovoor wrote to Seiko and found that no one from the company has contacted Sai Baba and no such specimen watch was present there; there was no response from Sai Baba or his supporters."

It has bias (placing the word materialised in quotes and uses terms like "took on"), and says this is a famous claim but I can't any reliable sources for this (if anyone can please list). At best its an alleged claim by one or more parties. Also is the source for this reliable? Its from an pseduo eulogy from a friend of Kavoor. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, as per WP:EDITORIALIZING such scare quotes are not recommended and I've removed it. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the current source, though it may be written by his friend, it is still published in India Today. The para has been mentioned in some other sources which I've come across but I don't see the need to putting more, since this one does the job. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok - I also think the sentence could be reworded. Eg "famous" (of all the claims listed this one seems to be a bit more obscure)? Also is there any reliable source that this was a claim by Sai Baba and not claims of his devotees? I'd propose a rewording to: "Abraham Kovoor looked into claims that Sai Baba's had materialised a Seiko watch, the only specimen of which was in a Tokyo vault, before the Japanese head of the company" 75.124.71.226 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

From http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v01/1-11-1.htm: "In Dr. Dale Beyerstein's letter of 7-3-1988 to Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, he mentioned about the Seiko watch materialization as researched by Sam Dalal, Magician, Calcutta. Dr. Haraldsson in his letter dated 21-10-1988 said that the story is only a hearsay and there seem to be many editions of it and one cannot use these unverified second hand stories as argument for anything until they have been verified." 75.124.71.226 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You can fix it, that sentence does look shabby. The Crit section looks decently sourced since it tends to be strictly monitored and discussed over (few instances of WP:CITEKILL, happens whenever there are conflicts, people think more the number of sources, the better chance the content should stay), but overall looks better formatted than the rest. Looking at your interest in this topic, remember that there is a mammoth task of cleaning up the rest of the article and any help is much appreciated. There are many poorly sourced sections, excessively long paras which stray away off-topic (some of these issues are mentioned above) which need to be done up. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Skeptical sources (e.g. Indian skeptic/Basava Premanand, Piet Vroon, Dale Beyerstein) were rejected in a mediation as reliable sources for this article. This mediation happened years ago and I was one of the parties to it. Of course skeptical sources can be used indirectly if they have been used by a reliable source e.g. India Today, BBC or Mick Brown. Andries (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How do keep this article from being vandalized from supporters from the Sai Baba group. I have been researching Swaminaryan sect of Hinduism and when any thing regarding criticism is posted, my friends and I were attacked by a swarm of bees (members of the group). Do you have any advise?

Bluespeakers (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone merge the two separate controversy/criticism sections together?

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

They are one section now? Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot can be done by intelligent copyediting. Many times the sick-making promotionality is caused by group speak. If you take out words like "discourse" when all someone did was speak, "reside" when they just lived somewhere, and all the breathless devotional phrasing, you are making a good start. But you have to be very even handed. If you also take out the snide references to "cults" (which don't really mean anything except "I don't like these people") and be careful with "allegedly" and "claimed," you could end up with a very good Wikipedia article. Rumiton (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"A Man Called God" line - this doesn't seem to be a noteworthy source. Should this reference be taken out? Can't find a lot of info about this on any sources as well apart from the self promotion. 75.124.71.226 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What if he returns?

It is claimed that he will return rejuvenated, to resume and complete his mission, living 7 years more, after a period of 2 or 3 years from his "death". Details here: http://www.saikingdom.com/

In this case, should we delete the "Died" row from the Infobox? Or should we append a "Return" row?

177.106.186.219 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a tricky one. The best course of action might be to just wait until he comes back. Rumiton (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, and, as such, claims such as that are dealt with in the text, with appropriate qualifications, not stated as fact. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, as in life, it is always important to stay open to the possibility of irony. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When it happens, then's the time to deal with things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant...oh, never mind. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased

I am aware of the history of this article.

It was a purely anti-Sai panflet.

With huge effort, the article received a more "neutral" tone.

While if the simple truth prevailed, we would see a completely different article, what we see now is lots and lots of "claims" of anti-Sai mixed with some true facts presented also as "claims".

Irony is that, indeed, the article confirms Baba's statement of internet being "like a waste paper basket". For anyone who knew him, this is crystal clear.

For those who do not know him, unfortunately the article ignores the huge amount of testimonials and published material about him and his life, while pays close attention to poorly produced propaganda against him.

Thus, the article is far far far away from being neutral in its point-of-view.

The percentage/amount of anti-Sai preferred topics is around 80%, while if Sai followers would write the article, 20% or less of it would remain. Not because there isn't enough to fulfill an article space (it is exactly the opposite - one must cherry pick among the huge amount of content available), but because this space has since long ago been dominated by anti-Sai POV people.

Paradoxically, this is not a problem, at all. Sai Baba strongly assured his lack of interest on collecting followers of having a big number of devotees. He several times insisted on NOT making propaganda of him. He boldly stated that, as long people turned themselves to the path of Love (and Truth, and Righteousness, and Peace, and Non-Violence), they would be doing wht he wanted - it does not matter if Sai is praised or blamed. It does not matter at all.

Only weak-minded people, like myself, would waste time trying to fix or improve his reputation. This also explains why the article does not receive more attention and effort from the devotees, to be improved and better reflect the facts.

Anyway, in my weakness I feel sorry that such a piece of disinformation exists in a publication which should be a source of information, and I sincerely hope it gets improved in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.162.174 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a terrible article. The criticism section is laughable for anyone that really new Baba. I was one of the people that turned it around about 5-6 years ago, don't remember how to use Wikipedia now 24.171.103.85 (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If any one of you can add Reliable sources and follow Wiki-policies to make your changes, then by all means do. The Criticism section is well-referenced to a casual observer and is probably the only well-kept part, the rest is in need of cleanup though. Till then remember this is not a forum for general discussion on the topic, only for actual improvements to the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Responses to criticism. Really?

In these kind of articles, it seems standard to shift anything seen as negative into a Criticism and controversy ghetto, but does it really need a tag-on section in what seems to be an attempt to get the last word in? AndroidCat (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does seem like that but what are you proposing? we merge Criticism and Responses? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe merge them both into the main article? Or maybe allow a Response to Response to criticism section? In any event I rarely get involved these believer/non-believer time-sinks any more, preferring more productive wiki projects. Dropping it from my watchlist. AndroidCat (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

sex abuse allegations

There seems to be a serious lack of information on the topic. Can I request someone add thorough information about the allegations in a neutral and logical tone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.9.52 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Avatar?

The question has arisen whether Sai Baba and / or his followers considered him an avatar. One recent editor claims that neither he or his followers have claimed this. The following Sai Baba organisation webpage indicates the opposite ~ http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Portal/On-Himself.htm Therefore a proper discussion on this issue is needed. Afterwriting (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A secondary source confirms that "Sai Baba's followers regard him as divine, claiming that he is an avatar of Shiva..." I'm restoring the category. Manul ~ talk 08:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Vosmania keeps reverting, but hasn't shown up here. Maybe there is a language barrier? The last edit deletes sourced material with comment "no sourced material was deleted". Manul ~ talk 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in this argument of Avatar, and this article. Vosmania (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit odd since it was you who started the debate on this issue in this article and have kept on editing about it. Afterwriting (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sai baba is a muslim/ hindu religious group like bahai , should not be part of hindu series. Please remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.133 (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Sai baba be removed from the hindu portal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Sathya Sai Baba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110521155709/http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2009/12/3/north/5212802&sec=North to http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2009/12/3/north/5212802&sec=North

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110424073421/http://indiatoday.intoday.in:80/site/story/sathya-sai-baba-health-scare-assets-transition/1/135354.html to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/sathya-sai-baba-health-scare-assets-transition/1/135354.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227185518/http://www.heartvalvebank.info/wordpress/?page_id=45 to http://www.heartvalvebank.info/wordpress/?page_id=45
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070409084809/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/jan172006/spectrum106442006117.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan172006/spectrum106442006117.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930203642/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/004200701171340.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/004200701171340.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150602084620/http://www.saieducare.org/html/index.asp to http://www.saieducare.org/html/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090307021237/http://www.fraserinstitute.org:80/reportcards/schoolperformance/schooldisplay.aspx?id=ONE665134 to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/reportcards/schoolperformance/schooldisplay.aspx?id=ONE665134
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070501184330/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/nov232005/national1724520051122.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov232005/national1724520051122.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150413132444/http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01MAR06/coverstory_sundaram.htm to http://media.radiosai.org/Journals/Vol_04/01MAR06/coverstory_sundaram.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sathya Sai Baba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090330145112/http://thestar.com.my:80/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2005/4/2/features/9982154&sec=features to http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2005/4/2/features/9982154&sec=features
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100204010039/http://www.dr.dk:80/Salg/DRsales/Programmes/Documentary/Society_and_Social/20070629133445_3_1_3_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1.htm to http://dr.dk/Salg/DRsales/Programmes/Documentary/Society_and_Social/20070629133445_3_1_3_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"never proven to be true"

This wording seems to be get added in articles dealing with allegations. WP:ALLEGED says how we deal these situations usually. Adding this wording is at the very least redundant per the definition of allegation; there's no need to reassert this. Worse case, it's MOS:OPED. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sathya Sai Baba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F12%2F3%2Fnorth%2F5212802&sec=North
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111071245/http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622940/description to http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622940/description
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=%2F2005%2F4%2F2%2Ffeatures%2F9982154&sec=features

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices Edit

I’ve noticed a recent large change by a generally respected editor @Chhandama: who has made an attempt to reverse engineer some justification for cult leader being in the heading of the article – which previous to his attempt had no representative basis whatsoever in the article. Some parts of his edits add value to the article, and it looks as though he spent significant time on it. Perhaps for the reason above the edit does appear heavy-handed and one sided. I am presuming good faith and that editor was simply unaware that his finding of the term “cult” in journals may be piggybacking on a long-standing divide within academia regarding religious groups that have recently emerged and the terminology used to classify them (namely this long raging debate has been whether they should be called “new religious movements” NRMs or “cults”). If the editor was simply unaware of this noted divide in camps - good faith would certainly still be in place (it would just need correction). If editor was aware of this divide and only represented one side #problematic. Reliance on older sources made this mistake easier. As Gallagher, in the journal History of Religions, University of Chicago Press has noted that more recently “’New Religious movement,’ on the other hand, is a classification preferred by most academics, who see ‘cult’ as a pejorative term and intend to replace it with a more neutral label.”

In any event editor’s contribution will need balancing as it completely ignores one of the two camps and many RS that call it a new religious movement or movement and the edit focuses only on academic sources that call it a “cult” (several of which are out of date). I believe editors intention was to have some mention of cult somewhere in the article so as to provide some rationale for it being in the heading. As I have made clear before it doesn't belong in the heading for many reasons, primary one that it is not a fact, but a contested assertion so violates wikipedia's MOS and WP:YESPOV.

As a smaller note The entry on Charles SJ White 1972 article should actually be removed or significantly edited for 3 reasons: 1. White titled the article the Sai Baba Movement and consistently uses the term movement to describe throughout even drawing attention to the term as how he chooses to describe – as best I can tell the term cult was only used once in reference and yet it is highlighted like that is how he refers to it. 2. Poorly researched – I went through the article and White never said Sathya Sai Baba style was rooted in the Nathpanthis – he said Shirdi Sai Baba’s practices could be argued to be like that – and that it was a stretch to try to relate it to Sathya Sai Baba though there may be some form of reminiscence in the area of vibhuti. 3. It’s 1972 printing confines it’s scope and understanding of what Sathya Sai Baba came to be regarded as (noted to be quite limited by White himself).

Also I find the placement of the edits a bit off in beliefs and practices section it seems more like an entry for a classification section or a "characterizations section" which perhaps we need one as there seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not it should be called a new religious movement or cult and whether or not it deserves to be called hindu as it identifies itself as interfaith and celebrates holidays from most major world religions, but has noted hindu trappings and many hindu adherents. With respect to all, including editor mentioned. Objectiveap (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Cult Leader

Hello Helpful Wikipedians: There is a lot of revision back and forth going on since the introduction of "Cult Leader" to describe Sathya Sai Baba - which doesn't seem to have been there in the versions I saw prior to November 28,2017 to describe the subject here. It seems inappropriate to me for two reasons: 1. That the vast majority of objective sources describe him as a "spiritual leader" (BBC, NY Times, Times of India, Telegraph are the ones you can find in my edit from today 2/14/18) and do not use the word "cult" at all to describe the organization and 2. the SSB organization doesn't meet the criteria for a cult as defined by sourced experts (which I go into on c.fred talk page) - Kindly review that before claiming "cult" should apply to a first line description:

Essentially I contend the sources being used to support the claim of "cult leader" are weak (The Sun - a tabloid, and Anthropological Quarterly) and reflect a biased POV and that the term "spiritual leader" is the norm used by virtually all objective reputable news sources that I've found. Wikipedia is far better served by having the objective description in the first line. Or at the very least removing tabloid sourced, slanderous, language from first line descriptions.

Kindly weigh in

Thank You, Objectiveap (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Ian.thomson and C.Fred: at this discussion, use what the source states. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime What of my sources for the description "Spiritual Leader" are you claiming we should use The Sun (tabloid) and Anthropological Quarterly as sources rather than (my sources) the New York Times, the BBC, The Times of India, the Telegraph, etc. etc. etc... interestingly even the source you are supporting (later in the article) after the sensationalistic headline calls him a "Spiritual Leader". The argument for "Spiritual Leader" as the description is much stronger. Objectiveap (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Should we perhaps temper the language? Here's a thought I have to revise the intro (references omitted for the sake of focusing on the prose):

Sathya Sai Baba (born 'Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru, cult spiritual leader, and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi; however, he was frequently characterized as a cult leader.

This leaves the description "cult leader" in the introduction but removes it from such a focal position. It also acts as a counter-point to his claims. @Objectiveap: Does this mitigate your concerns about the tone of the first sentence? —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred - First let me acknowledge your efforts here toward what seem to be genuine motives to improve wikipedia. It got me thinking and so I ran an objective test, in case I was mistaken, in thinking this group is clearly not usually viewed as a cult. I typed "Sathya Sai Baba" and ran a search in google and went through the first ten pages: on each google results page (1-10) I used command f to search each page for the word "cult" - I got zero hits in 10 pages of search results (except for the "cult leader" description that we are discussing on wikipedia itself and sometimes it would find and highlight the word culture). What we are debating about appears nowhere except here in the first 10 pages of Google, which might be a good reason to end the debate. (I did not check beyond 10 so it may be a much longer stretch btw). Try it out. My strong suspicion is that it is a very small minority of committed anti-Sai Baba folks which call this organization a cult as part of a "smear" effort, likely in some of those cases not even thinking it objectively as a cult themselves. Even the majority of non-believers in Sathya Sai Baba (of which there are many) hold high regard for all the service work being done by the SSB organization, and would not call it a cult. Therefore I see it as damaging to wikipedia's reputation, a disrespect for the truth, and an injustice to an organization that does so much good for people all over the world with the "Love All, Serve All" "Help Ever, Hurt Never" motto - to have the word "cult" anywhere in the heading. It simply is not an informed view of this group. As mentioned before I can understand it being included in an allegations or criticism section IF it can be well sourced. If you feel you must include it, it should be noted as a minority opinion (at least amongst informed objective sources - which I believe is demonstrated by the information I've provided on this page and in others on your c.fred talk page). I look forward to hearing your thoughts and those of others on Wikipedia. Objectiveap (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Be it noted that according to Wikipedia policy (on Wikipedia:Reliable source, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources): "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...", that the cited journal Anthropological Quarterly is a peer-reviewed publication. Other peer-reviewed papers which explicitly treat SSB movement as "cult" are not wanting, e.g. Lee, R.L.M. (1986). "Continuity and change in Chinese spirit mediumship in urban Malaysia". Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia. 142 (2): 198–214. doi:10.1163/22134379-90003355.; Urban, Hugh B. (2003). "Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism". Religion. 33 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1016/S0048-721X(02)00080-5.; Srinivas, Smriti (2008). "The Brahmin and the fakir: Suburban religiosity in the cult of Shirdi Sai baba". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 14 (2): 245–261. doi:10.1080/13537909908580865.; Swallow, D. A. (2008). "Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult". Modern Asian Studies. 16 (01): 123. doi:10.1017/S0026749X0000072X.; Elison, William (2014). "Sai Baba of Bombay: A Saint, His Icon, and the Urban Geography of". History of Religions. 54 (2): 151–187. doi:10.1086/677808. – showing beyond doubt this is a well-informed and educated view. Far from being a "minority opinion", scholarly books also agree to this cult designation; e.g. Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides (ISBN 9780826459596), Saints and Virtues by John Stratton Hawley (ISBN 9780520061637), Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association by Marc Galanter (ISBN 9780890422120) explain the rationale of calling SSB a cult leader, and his movement a cult. Chhandama (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chhandama: your contribution to the conversation here is real; and yet this is complex (NOTE: for those that want only the wikipedia technical side of this skip to last paragrpah), these sources need clarification and there is an important distinction to point out, still it is definitely a contribution to the discussion, and I appreciate you pushing me to investigate further; it exposed me to some perspectives on this I was not familiar with, and still I do have notes about these sources. We can privately have a longer discussion on them if you wish, I will summarize here: of the eight sources cited only one had SSB as its main topic, and this is important as I will discuss in a bit. I found a couple of them did explicitly mention Sathya Sai Baba's movement as a cult (2 particularly), I found some were not easily verifiable online (iow couldn't find a way to read/search the whole article) but found no evidence of cult applying to Sathya Sai Baba in the sections I was able to access, but they may have done so elsewhere (2 sources @Chhandama do you have a recommended way of gaining access?). And then there were some that from using google books search feature definitively did NOT mention Sathya Sai Baba's movement as a cult (2). Also, a couple were on Shirdi Sai Baba, not Sathya Sai Baba - question to you was this a mistake? (2 sources).

The Sathya Sai Baba Organization is not a cult in the strict sense, if you research it directly, it does not meet enough of the criteria outlined by all the authoritative sources I've seen on the subject - though I understand how some could label it as such peripherally. The important thing to realize here is that most of these authors that did or may have (giving the benefit of the doubt here) mentioned SSB Movement as a cult were already, what I call cooking a stew on a subject. In this case they were cooking a cult stew and started throwing different things in. There are elements of the Sathya Sai Baba Movement that are cult-like (belief that He is an Avatar of God for example) and it's an interesting subject (obviously) so it's hard to blame them for wanting to talk about it in their books, and as they are applying cult to everything in the book - they say it's close enough and they throw it in, certainly makes sense if you take the word cult loosely. However, when doing it in this manner and in an academic journal, it can generally be done without the slanderous edge that is normally assumed and assessed to the word in casual parlance.

Wikipedia is a different biosphere and should thus be handled appropriately. Many, many (vast majority of) people come to wikipedia for short, definite, unbiased, basic understanding of a subject. As a result it is quite important to be precise and objective, unbiased and refrain from inflammatory language unless definitive proof exists. Especially and particularly in a short form description used in a main heading. This is the same thing reputable newspapers are constantly having to focus on and I would imagine the same reason that when you distill it down, and really look at it, it is inappropriate to call this group a cult in short form, and that is why the vast majority of newspapers do not (they could certainly sell more papers short term by doing it and yet they do not, presumably because it's bad journalism). We should not do so here either in the heading IMO, it can certainly be discussed further down in the article (which it has never been to my knowledge though I can't review all version of this website throughout history). My proposal is that if someone thinks it is a cult - include why in the criticism section first, it would definitely have to be supported and agreed to there before being applied as the main heading. Also If you note the word cult is only used once in the whole wikipedia article (in passive, passing reference in the criticism section) prior to the anonymous posting of making it the MAIN description on 28 November 2017. It's not a cult. That post was inappropriate. Let's change the heading back to a neutral, objective one. If it is agreed to be a cult in the controversy section only then can you even begin to justify it being the main heading. Can we agree on that? With sincere gratitude for all who are contributing here. Objectiveap (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is now obvious that you missed entirely of what Wikipeda is and is not, and the value of academic publishing. As I presented, "cult" is the scholarly description, and it shall remain. Above all, your sentiment (which does not matter in Wikipedia) is a biased viewpoint. Considering that there are 5.5+ million other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss, this discussion should end here. Chhandama (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chhandama:Thank you for your reply. My opinions and your opinions of SSB group are not relevant to wikipedia, I agree. Just do an unbiased search (if you are using the word "cult" in your search for reference materials you are doing a biased search). Once you have the reference material in an unbiased way you can search for the word "cult" within it. You will find Cult is not THE scholarly description, it is A scholarly description -Here are the results of an unbiased search where you simply type in the name Sathya Sai Baba on questia and NONE of them refer to this group as a cult. These are the first 10 I found that had relevance they include books, academic journals, newspapers, - also added another academic article at the end.

• Arnoldy, Ben. “Sai Baba: In Modern India, Traditional Guru Still Has Powerful Influence.” The Christian Science Monitor, 25 Apr. 2011. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1P2-32552913/sai-baba-in-modern-india-traditional-guru-still.

• Arweck, Elisabeth, and Peter B. Clarke. New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography. Greenwood Press, 1997. Questia, www.questia.com/read/71919405/new-religious-movements-in-western-europe-an-annotated. Accessed 2018.

• Berger, Peter L., and Samuel P. Huntington, editors. Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press, 2002. Questia, www.questia.com/read/107481368/many-globalizations-cultural-diversity-in-the-contemporary. Accessed 2018.

• “CIA Thought Sathya Sai Baba's Movement Would Become a 'Worldwide Religion'.” Hindustan Times (New Delhi, India), 23 Jan. 2017. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1P4-1861716514/cia-thought-sathya-sai-baba-s-movement-would-become. Accessed 2018.

• Quack, Johannes. Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press, 2011. Questia, www.questia.com/read/121630447/disenchanting-india-organized-rationalism-and-criticism. Accessed 2018.

• Simpson, Dick. The Politics of Compassion and Transformation. Swallow Press, 1989. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1232884/the-politics-of-compassion-and-transformation. Accessed 2018.

• “Suddenly the Birds Stopped Singing and Then He Appeared the Legend Known as 'The Living God'.” Daily Mail (London), 22 Dec. 1997. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1G1-110873572/suddenly-the-birds-stopped-singing-and-then-he-appeared. Accessed 2018.

• Suneetha, K. “Implementing Positive Values in Organizations and Education for Better Living.” Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 4, no. 1, 2013, pp. 140+. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1P3-3466318061/implementing-positive-values-in-organizations-and. Accessed 2018.

• Tahara, Norimasa. “Trip through Time / India's Icon, His 'Miracles' Still Revered: Sathya Sai Baba (1926-2011) in Puttaparthi].” The Daily Yomiuri (Toyko, Japan), 6 Feb. 2014. Questia, www.questia.com/read/1P3-3205249071/trip-through-time-india-s-icon-his-miracles-still. Accessed 2018.

• Tweed, Thomas A., and Stephen A. Prothero, editors. Asian Religions in America: A Documentary History. Oxford University Press, 1999. Questia, www.questia.com/read/58327277/asian-religions-in-america-a-documentary-history. Accessed 2018.

- The Essence of Hindu Doctrine and its Influence on Christianity in America and Europe

International Journal of Orthodox Theology. https://doaj.org/article/4421acd3f30346e6bac655c9c7b43d33

This is a repeatable source search, which makes it objectively testable:

Note this list can go on and on and on of educated people who examine the subject and do not call/regard it as a cult. So this should achieve clarity that it is not held by even a majority of the informed that cult applies here, it is an opinion of only some, and a contested assertion, therefore as per wikipedia's rules on neutral point of view and I quote:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Therefore: categorically it is against wikipedia's neutrality policy for "cult leader" to be applied as the description in wikipedia's voice.

Accordingly, with respect for wikipedia's rules (whatever you may think of the subject), I propose the following consensus:

We agree that cult leader should not be in the heading @C.Fred:@FlightTime: (Which until November 28th 2017 it never was to my knowledge) and it should now read as it did before:

Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was an Indian guru and philanthropist. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi. @C.Fred:@FlightTime: Thanks for all comments. Objectiveap (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, we do not agree. "Cult leader" should remain in the heading. If we cannot agree to move it to the end of the paragraph, then we need to keep the status quo: it stays in the lead sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred:@FlightTime: Thank You for your brief replies. We may have a temporary fix. I must note it is not the status quo - As I have painstakingly shown with objective, repeatable, source referencing: ZERO results on first 10 pages of Google and ZERO Results in First 10 Relevant Sources on Questia. Further research indicates it is not the status quo on wikipedia either. I've searched the talk page archive for this article. Throughout the history of this article there have been several attempts (in some cases with obvious clearly stated collusion and conspiracy) of people/groups attempting to interject the "cult" designation on this organization and each time the evidence has been deemed insufficient to do so).

Given the sources objectively (and repeatable by anyone) presented above, frankly I am quite surprised by the stonewall stance here of respected wikipedians. I know I am a newcomer to wikipedia, I have suspicions that said fact may be distracting you all from the topic at hand. That and probably a lack of time to thoroughly investigate the sources cited. Which as you will see from my recently created user page, I do understand. Still truth needs to win out here, and I have some commitment to being sure it does.

That being said, while I do not agree that it should be in the heading (and with my knowledge of the subject likely never will) C.Fred's suggestion made in his post a couple of days ago of a heading - if slightly modified - I would consider a true statement with only a minor change from "frequently" to "by some".

At least then we would have a true statement (while questionably placed) and be more appropriate with the use of wikipedia's voice. At present wikipedia's voice (as per its neutrality rules) is being used incorrectly as being definitive on something that is disputed/not clear (as described in posts above). @C.Fred: Are you willing to implement the heading you suggested, save a change of "frequently" to "by some" so that at least we avoid continuing with what to me is a clear misuse of wikipedia's voice?

Perhaps others will independently come along later that can verify if or if not "cult" is being applied to this organization so much that it belongs in the heading. I do not see that evidence having fairly thoroughly reviewed the references with unbiased searches and having reviewed cursorily the article's history on wikipedia. Objectiveap (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the article, as you did, I noticed a number of single-purpose accounts, including yours, that have shown up for the sole purpose of editing this article—and it's chiefly been those accounts trying to remove "cult leader" from the article. Accordingly, I question whether you are truly edited from as objective a viewpoint as you claim to be. As a result, at this time I am leaning more toward leaving the article in its current state, even if that means "cult leader" is in the first sentence. Only if a review by a number of long-standing editors with experience outside this subject determines that it should be moved or removed am I inclined to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred:You are I hope aware that the same argument goes the other way, but you seem to be ignoring that - as "Cult Leader" was originally posted by a unnamed user on November 28th, 2017. While I have no knowledge of who the anonymous posters were who tried to have it removed - it's (more than) a double standard to blame anonymous contributors for wanting it removed and not anonymous contributors who put it there to begin with. I have no need to defend being new to Wikipedia, as I have been clear about that and honest about it from the beginning. I have an opinion about this and it is an educated one (check my user page). All the work was done objectively in searching sources to establish the truth of the pervasiveness of the use of the word "cult" or as the searches revealed the predominant lack of the use of the word (for good reasons). To say nothing of the fact that wikipedia is about objective truth as presented by sources and you have not addressed the large amount of reference sources I have provided, nor (I am guessing here) checked the validity of all the sources presented which were gathered in as objective and repeatable a way as I can imagine. Anyone can carry out the searches for sources mentioned and will find the same results I did (if they are being truthful). It is absurd to misuse wikipedia's voice here, or allow it be misused in the face of massive objective evidence to the contrary simply because I am a new user. Otherwise I wish you a good day. Objectiveap (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been doing other things on Wikipedia, but realized I never referred everyone to read the neutral point of view notice board for more on this topic - where I believe a consensus was reached regarding moving cult leader from the heading: Objectiveap (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where consensus was reached. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

An honest question: my read was that the majority of neutrality editors suggested or agreed that moving from heading was a good idea in view of WP:Label, WP:YESPOV and the one that demurred and requested an academic refutation was given one - specifically refuting the cited source's use of the term. Do you see why I would think we made progress on this enough to call it consensus? Objectiveap (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No - but you obviously have a desired outcome. For this issue the article is fine as is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Since the RS evidence weight is strongly on the other side (even the sources you cited on your talk page were found to not actually call it a cult). Probably a good fall back strategy on your part to try to discredit the person showing and requesting others to: check the RS view for themselves in an unbiased way. The neutral editors on the board did, and found the same as I did. I'm confident this will straighten out in time (Hence I have not made any edits on the page since this discussion began).Objectiveap (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between a source that doesn't use the word cult, and a source that discredits the use of the word cult. You haven't really presented any of the latter category. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I most certainly did, a specific review and refutation of the cited source in the article (ie a refutation of Babb's use of cult) from a respected peer reviewed academic journalObjectiveap (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The reference is a book review in a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike articles, book reviews are not subject to peer review. Perhaps it would be useful to consult the book being reviewed as well as that author's sources.Radical Militant Librarian (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The word/term Philantrophy ?

Using the word philanthrophist when describing spiritual-teachers, saints or similar, is unprecedented. The word has hitherto been used frequently when the talk was about succesfull businesspeople,( people of great monetary wealth, earned or inherited )- supporting a worthy cause ( sometimes many a good cause ) I therefore suggest some editing. Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA7:4006:7DF:6066:B2D1:A8E3:C392 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Wiki Page. Why the hate?

The term and phrasing in opening paragraphs of bio read “his acts were based on sleight of hand though his devotees believed them signs of his divinity”

I written the admin and advised this inaccurate assessment, furthermore it’s reference in links [14-16] of his charity and legacy.

This is wrong and I encourage all devotees of Sathya Sai Baba to take hard look at how that sentence appears and disregards someone who did so much for so many.

Thank you love you all.

Sainath SKSathishchandar (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@SKSathishchandar: The sentence follows the description of his "purported materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches". In that context, it is appropriate to describe the criticisms and/or skeptics' assessment of his actions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@c.fred you are correct, the sentence follows a description. The description begins with “purported” - open ended. The sentence, in context is opinionated. The following sentence is finite, “His acts were based on”. I understand your view however grammatically you opinion and facts do not compliment each other in context of ones character. Actions are based on character, “his acts were based on…” is defining, not open to speculation or opinion. It is finite. And the preceding sentence ends with …controversy.” So if the train of thought is giving light to both view points, the following sentence shouldn’t be of just one. SKSathishchandar (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Correction

“however grammatically opinion and fact”

• typo*

• • “however grammatically you opinion and fact”** SKSathishchandar (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Asking the wider group: Do we need a qualifier on the follow-on sentence? Something along the lines of "His acts were determined by several researchers to be sleight of hand"? The prose of the article backs up that there were several investigations into his acts. —C.Fred (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• @SKSathishchandar: There is no hate in the article, but we want to be careful not to give equal weight to points of view that contradict accepted scientific facts. Resurrections and manifestations of objects and holy ash are phenomena that are physically impossible, according to mainstream science. We do acknowledge that there is a group of people who do not agree with the mainstream view, but we can't give undue weight to a fringe point of view. @C.Fred: We might add something in the intro about the investigations, but I don't think the "His acts were based on sleight of hand" phrasing should be weakened. --bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That being said, "sleight of hand" is maybe not the best term – it applies to manifestations (and the source Quack 2012 discusses this), but it is a little weird to say that a purported resurrection is done by sleight of hand. There is another source, Winged Faith (Srinivas 2010) which talks a bit about his (alleged) miraculous healings and resurrections. I can't do any in-depth reading of that right now, but it might be a useful source as well. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Using copyright free images released by Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre

Following are the suggested changes to Wikipedia Images

a) The Infobox (Personal) with Sri Sathya Sai Baba Image, the file File:Sri Sathya Sai Baba.jpg. Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre has released copyright claims https://www.sssmediacentre.org/#/album-detail-page/61613579ba3503be6af77518 and has released the image with creative commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

b) The Infobox (proclamation) is not of 1940. Sri Sathya Sai Baba was born in 1926 and the right image at the age of 14 right after proclamation is released for wikipedia corrections 'Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 14, soon after proclaiming he was the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba'. Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre has released copyright claims https://www.sssmediacentre.org/#/album-detail-page/61613579ba3503be6af77518 and has released the image with creative commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

c) Sathya Sai Organisation (Road Side Shrine image), the head quarters of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and all Sai Organizations is Prasanthi Nilayam as mentioned in the same page. The image of Prasanthi Nilayam is released by Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre https://www.sssmediacentre.org/#/album-detail-page/61613579ba3503be6af77518 under creative commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

d) Sathya Sai Baba Samadhi image on wikipedia, does not show anything. Please can the right images be used to correct Wikipedia page. The right image of Sri Sathya Sai Baba Maha Samadhi is released by Sri Sathya Sai media centre https://www.sssmediacentre.org/#/album-detail-page/61613579ba3503be6af77518 under creative commons license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Venkatant (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussions about the same topic in the same section. There is a response in Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Colour_picture which explains why those images were removed from the article, and what you should do. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea : The icons indicate commons license. The text can be reworded and pictures be reupload with following 'Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre revokes Copyright claim'. Will this work? Apologies but please understand, we are only trying to rectify links and right images. Will appreciate help in helping us do it right. Happy to discuss under section mentioned by You

Venkatant (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Changes requested by Venkatant

All the requests below were added in a single edit with multiple edit request templates. I added sub-headings and copied the signature + timestamp to each request, for clarity. --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page title

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: Page Title to be modified to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' Reason for the change: The right name is 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and not the earlier one. When ever Baba wrote and signed, it was always 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba'. References supporting change: Following evidences show the Signature of 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and hence the name needs to be corrected to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' across the page. a) b) c) Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done none of those sources meets the requirements for reliable sources. Honorifics such as "sri" are normally not used in the text of a Wikipedia article. More information MOS:HONORIFIC. --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, 'Sri' prefix here is not Honorific but the name. In the case of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 'Bhagawan' would be Honorific and not 'Sri'. Sri is commonly used in Indian names and in wikipedia, this is allowed. Some examples are a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_M b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo As The Hindu editorials and published news is considered as 'verifiable' by Wikipedia, please do refer to the links below to justify using 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and sincerely request you to relook at the correction a) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Sathya-Sai-Baba-passes-away/article13663703.ece - This reliable source starts with 'Iconic spiritual leader Sri Sathya Sai Baba passed away at Puttaparthi' b) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/Sathya-Sai-Baba-shows-signs-of-improvement/article14675569.ece - This reliable source per wikipedia, starts with 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who is undergoing treatment for multi-organ dysfunction' c) The editorial of a reliable wikipedia source https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/Sai-Baba-his-life-and-legacy/article14808978.ece refers to 'In a country that has never been short of self-proclaimed godmen peddling spiritual succour with commercial motive, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who passed away at the age of 84 at Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh on April 24, 2011, stands out as a rare phenomenon' d) Please also refer to https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/freezer-box-for-sathya-sai-baba-was-ordered-on-april-4-7718.html where the article indicates 'Puttaparthi, Apr 28: The freezer box in which the mortal remains of Sri Sathya Sai Baba was kept for public view was reportedly ordered on April 4, the Times of India reported' Venkatant (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Please can the edit be looked into given further links and research information provided 'Sri' prefix here is not Honorific but the name. In the case of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 'Bhagawan' would be Honorific and not 'Sri'. Sri is commonly used in Indian names and in wikipedia, this is allowed. Some examples are a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_M b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo As The Hindu editorials and published news is considered as 'verifiable' by Wikipedia, please do refer to the links below to justify using 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and sincerely request you to relook at the correction a) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Sathya-Sai-Baba-passes-away/article13663703.ece - This reliable source starts with 'Iconic spiritual leader Sri Sathya Sai Baba passed away at Puttaparthi' b) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/Sathya-Sai-Baba-shows-signs-of-improvement/article14675569.ece - This reliable source per wikipedia, starts with 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who is undergoing treatment for multi-organ dysfunction' c) The editorial of a reliable wikipedia source https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/Sai-Baba-his-life-and-legacy/article14808978.ece refers to 'In a country that has never been short of self-proclaimed godmen peddling spiritual succour with commercial motive, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who passed away at the age of 84 at Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh on April 24, 2011, stands out as a rare phenomenon' d) Please also refer to https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/freezer-box-for-sathya-sai-baba-was-ordered-on-april-4-7718.html where the article indicates 'Puttaparthi, Apr 28: The freezer box in which the mortal remains of Sri Sathya Sai Baba was kept for public view was reportedly ordered on April 4, the Times of India reported' Venkatant (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Add "Sri" throughout

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: All instances of 'Sathya Sai Baba' to be corrected to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' across the Page Reason for the change: The right name is 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and not the earlier one. When ever Baba wrote and signed, it was always 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba'. References supporting change: Following evidences show the Signature of 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and hence the name needs to be corrected to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' across the page. a) b) c) Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done See previous section. --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, 'Sri' prefix here is not Honorific but the name. In the case of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 'Bhagawan' would be Honorific and not 'Sri'. Sri is commonly used in Indian names and in wikipedia, this is allowed. Some examples are a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_M b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo Please see 'verifiable sources' provided above for 'Title change request'. In the same wikipedia page, please see PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reply to state that Honorofic would be Bhagawan in this case and not the word 'Sri'. Additional links added for your perusal a) The Financial Times article 'https://www.ft.com/content/2e004046-6e87-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0' refers to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' in ' Sri Sathya Sai Baba, the spiritual leader whose devotees included some of India’s top business, political and public figures, and who created India’s richest religious trust, has died of multiple organ failure, nine years before he prophesied he would.' b) Forbes article https://www.forbes.com/global/2001/1210/064.html?sh=775083434c02 about Golden Oldie refers to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' as 'It's a gamble not many investors would make, but Sinclair has always stood apart from the crowd. On the walls of his office hang six photographs of Shri Sathya Sai Baba, a guru in India whom Sinclair visits several times a year. ' c) The guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies refers to 'The death of Sri Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 85 from heart and breathing problems' d) In the same wikipedia page, the response of then PM Atal bihari vajpayee refers to 'We are deeply pained and anguished by the wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We would normally expect that responsible media would ascertain the true facts before printing such a calumny – especially when the person is revered globally as an embodiment of love and selfless service to humanity.[132][133] ' Venkatant (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Please can the requested edit be re-looked based on 'Sri' prefix here is not Honorific but the name. In the case of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, 'Bhagawan' would be Honorific and not 'Sri'. Sri is commonly used in Indian names and in wikipedia, this is allowed. Some examples are a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_M b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo As The Hindu editorials and published news is considered as 'verifiable' by Wikipedia, please do refer to the links below to justify using 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' and sincerely request you to relook at the correction a) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Sathya-Sai-Baba-passes-away/article13663703.ece - This reliable source starts with 'Iconic spiritual leader Sri Sathya Sai Baba passed away at Puttaparthi' b) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/Sathya-Sai-Baba-shows-signs-of-improvement/article14675569.ece - This reliable source per wikipedia, starts with 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who is undergoing treatment for multi-organ dysfunction' c) The editorial of a reliable wikipedia source https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/Sai-Baba-his-life-and-legacy/article14808978.ece refers to 'In a country that has never been short of self-proclaimed godmen peddling spiritual succour with commercial motive, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who passed away at the age of 84 at Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh on April 24, 2011, stands out as a rare phenomenon' d) Please also refer to https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/freezer-box-for-sathya-sai-baba-was-ordered-on-april-4-7718.html where the article indicates 'Puttaparthi, Apr 28: The freezer box in which the mortal remains of Sri Sathya Sai Baba was kept for public view was reportedly ordered on April 4, the Times of India reported' Also Please see 'verifiable sources' provided above for 'Title change request'. In the same wikipedia page, please see PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee's reply to state that Honorofic would be Bhagawan in this case and not the word 'Sri'. Additional links added for your perusal a) The Financial Times article 'https://www.ft.com/content/2e004046-6e87-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0' refers to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' in ' Sri Sathya Sai Baba, the spiritual leader whose devotees included some of India’s top business, political and public figures, and who created India’s richest religious trust, has died of multiple organ failure, nine years before he prophesied he would.' b) Forbes article https://www.forbes.com/global/2001/1210/064.html?sh=775083434c02 about Golden Oldie refers to 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' as 'It's a gamble not many investors would make, but Sinclair has always stood apart from the crowd. On the walls of his office hang six photographs of Shri Sathya Sai Baba, a guru in India whom Sinclair visits several times a year. ' c) The guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies refers to 'The death of Sri Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 85 from heart and breathing problems' d) In the same wikipedia page, the response of then PM Atal bihari vajpayee refers to 'We are deeply pained and anguished by the wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We would normally expect that responsible media would ascertain the true facts before printing such a calumny – especially when the person is revered globally as an embodiment of love and selfless service to humanity.[132][133] Venkatant (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Please do not post the same text and links multiple times in different sections. It is true that several newspapers, in India and internationally, used Sri. However, there is nothing to indicate that it is in fact "so commonly attached to [his] name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it" (that's a quote from MOS:HONORIFIC). Sri is used with a lot of names, but is almost never part of the title of the article about them, nor is it used in Wikipedia's voice, with a few exceptions where no sources use the name without Sri. That a direct quote from the Prime Minister includes the title is a different matter. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC) As mentioned it is His name 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba'. Unclear on why this will be contested based on the reliable sources shared. Also, Sri Aurobindo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo) reference is ignored where Sri is mentioned in the name. All the organisations established by Baba are also 'Sri Sathya Sai'. It is common sense to understand that the name is Sri Sathya Sai Baba and not something else. Some even refer to Baba as Puttaparthi Sai Baba, we are not asking for that change. As mentioned, honorific in this instance is Bhagawan and not Sri. If English language 'Sri' is not attributed, so is the word 'Sathya' which perhaps would have got added later. The argument for a name does not hold good when a name is mentioned just like in the case of Sri Aurobindo Venkatant (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)  Not done Answered above. --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Sorry, the answers provided are not right and lack merit Venkatant (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The right name is Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the 'Sri' here is not honorary. Towards supporting the argument, several links were provided but the lack of knowledge of the Wiki editor (no disrespect) in this regard has resulted in retaining the wrong name. The name should be 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba' as in the case with Sri Aurobindo. The Wikipedia article of Sri Aurobindo reflects His right name!

To further support the correction and hoping common sense prevails,

a) A new district (province) formed by Government of Andhra Pradesh 'Sri Sathya Sai District'. [6], Wikipedia Page for Sri Sathya Sai District and the Official Government Website of Sri Sathya Sai District

b) As mentioned above in the case of Sri Aurobindo, Sri is part of the name and not honorary. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia Standard. The name needs to reflect correctly. Example of Sri in the Name

c) In case of Srisailam the work 'Sri' is not honorary. Same as in case of 'Sri' in Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Example of Sri in the place

d) Name of a Person (Poet) by name Sri Sri.

d) The Trust, Universities, Service Organisations etc are on name of Baba i.e., 'Sri Sathya Sai' and the approver will have to understand

It is quite common to use 'Sri' in names in India. Adding an additional 'Sri' like Sri Sri Sathya Sai Baba, the first Sri used will be honorific and not 'Sri' the name itself 'Sri Sathya Sai Baba'

Venkatant (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Answered above. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove claim in lead sentence

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: Replace Sathya Sai Baba (born Ratnakaram Sathyanarayana Raju; 23 November 1926 - 24 April 2011)[1] was an Indian guru and philanthropist.[2][3] At the age of fourteen he claimed that he was the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba,[4][5] and left his home in order to serve the society and be an example to his followers.[6][7] With the following Sri Sathya Sai Baba (born Ratnakaram Sathyanarayana Raju; 23 November 1926 - 24 April 2011) was an Indian Spiritual Guru and Philanthropist Reason for the change: Following are the contentions a) The reference 'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13153536' used as [1] lacks merit and is highly inaccurate. b) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm used as [8] The statement ' It is said that his mother claimed her son came into the world by virgin birth, just like Jesus Christ, another messiah who Sai Baba often identified himself with.' In the article is false and no where claimed by Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Various such falsified information without adequate research is in the article. The website is biased and lacks truth, the factual details mentioned in external site https://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/collapse-of-calumny.htm need to be considered. Hence we request to remove such prejudicial and inaccurate references The whole case of 1993 and other allegations were refuted in the Journal with evidences on https://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/collapse-of-calumny.htm . To be truthful and avid biased journalism, we request the text be corrected and BBC links to be removed in lieu of the reference given in the light of these artifacts. References supporting change: External URLS, References a) http://www.saibabaofindia.com/major_update_alaya_rahm_dismisse_lawsuit.htm b) https://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_04/01JUL06/collapse-of-calumny.htm c) https://g.co/kgs/RZ46Uk Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done There are two or three requests here. One is to remove the sentence "At the age of fourteen he claimed that he was the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and left his home in order to serve the society and be an example to his followers." This sentence is well-sourced, both in the lede and the article body. I do not see that there are any sources that say that he did not claim to be Shirdi Sai Baba's reincarnation, or that he did not leave home to serve society. The second part of the request is to do with sources. There are no policy based reasons to remove the BBC sources. The BBC is considered a generally reliable source, and the two sources are not used to support any controversial text in the article. It would also not in line with Wikipedia policy to use the three sources proposed here. The radiosai.org source ([7]) and the saibabaofindia.com source ([8]) are not independent and do not meet Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. That also applies to the book, as already discussed in Talk:Sathya Sai Baba#Additional reference. (Please do not give a Google search results page as a source – Google search is not a source, just like Google Books is not a source.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Change "The Sathya Sai Organisation" to "Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust" (3 requests)

• Specific text to be added or removed: Replace 'The Sathya Sai Organisation, founded by Sathya Sai Baba ' with 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust founded by Sathya Sai Baba

'

• Reason for the change: There was not and is no such entity, by the name of Sathya Sai Organisation. The right name of the entity founded by Sri Sathya Sai Baba is 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust'
• References supporting change: https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages

Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Specific text to be added or removed: Edit the Infobox Hindu Leader segment 'Founder of Sathya Sai Organisation' to 'Founder of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust'
• Reason for the change: There was not and is no such entity, by the name of Sathya Sai Organisation. The right name of the entity founded by Sri Sathya Sai Baba is 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust'
• References supporting change: https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages

Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Specific text to be added or removed: Correct the External Links

- Remove International Sai Organization - Add Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust (URL : https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages) - Add Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre (URL : https://www.sssmediacentre.org/# ) - Add Sri Sathya Sai Global Council (URL : https://www.sssglobalcouncil.org/ )

• Reason for the change: Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre are the two external links established by Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Kindly include these. There is no International Sai Organization and hence request the same to be replaced with Sri Sathya Sai Global Council
• References supporting change: https://www.sssmediacentre.org/# , https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages and https://www.sssglobalcouncil.org/

URL of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust :https://www.srisathyasai.org/pages/ and external references to substantiate that 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust' should be the right organisation a) Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Dear Bonadea, Saw comments for all sections but this. Hopefully, not missed out

Venkatant (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding further references a) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/sathya-sai-trust-signs-mou-with-ncert-ciet/article32999159.ece - two statements to show 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust' is the right name

- Sri Sathya Sai Baba had launched the SSSVV programme on November 23, 2010, to meet the growing need for holistic education for all, a release from the Trust said - On the occasion of the Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vahini (SSSVV) programme completing a decade, the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust signed a memorandum of understanding with the NCERT-CIET on Sunday to share its expertise with all government school teachers in the country.

b) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/un-body-confers-special-status-on-sri-sathya-sai-central-trust/article32950161.ece - two statements to show 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust' is the right name

- The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) conferred ‘Special Consultative Status’ on the Puttaparthi-based Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust. - “This also gives us a great opportunity to expand the service activities of Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organization all over the world and reach the people who are in need so that we spread the love of Sai Baba”,

c)https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/sri-sathya-sai-global-council-to-come-up-next-year/article33164142.ece - information regarding Sri Sathya Sai Global Council and Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust (SSSCT) on Monday announced setting up of Sri Sathya Sai Global Council to monitor and guide the activities of Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organisations, both in India and other countries. The new body would function from Guru Purnima in 2021, said trustee S.S. Naganand, while presenting the report of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust for the year ending March 2020, during the 95th birth anniversary celebrations of Sathya Sai Baba, held at Prashanthi Nilayam in Puttaparthi.

Mr. Naganand listed various social, medical and educational activities being taken up. He said a new multimedia museum in Brindavan, Whitefield (Bengaluru), and a new convention centre at Prasanthi Nilayam were nearing completion, along with Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre.

d) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/satya-sai-trust-expanding-activities/article7836334.ece 'the trust was formed in 1972 by Sri Sathya Sai Baba' Venkatant (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Venkatant: This request is still open. Somebody will get to it at some point. --bonadea contributions talk 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please can the requested changes be re-looked based on links provided. The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba_movement, Organisations also refers to Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust to prove the point. Venkatant (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkatant and Bonadea: I'll take care of this request. The current version isn't sourced with high quality content either and is prone to factual inaccuracies. With whatever references we have with us it's clear that the current article Sathya Sai Organization meant to be referring to Sri Sathya Sai International Organization and that Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust are two different entities, and have been in the past confused with the other. Hope we can fix it going into future. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional reference

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: Please add reference of the Book Love is My Form - A Biographical Series on Sri Sathya Sai Baba by R.Padmanabhan ISBN 8186822771 Reason for the change: The Book is a biography of Sri Sathya Sai Baba from 1926 to 1950 with documented evidences References supporting change: https://g.co/kgs/mXHuvG Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)  Not done No info about which specific text in the article would be supported by this source. The book is almost certainly not a reliable source in any case. The publisher is Sai Towers Publishing, run by the Sai Baba organisation, and the author has apparently only published various hagiographies about Sai Baba. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, Your claims that Sai Towers is run by Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust is inaccurate. I will request you to relook at this claim. This is a published biography of Sri Sathya Sai Baba by a Private Organization without any links to Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust Venkatant (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) I did not claim that it was run by the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust. It is however directly connected to Sai Baba, and it is not a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, In your review statement, 'The publisher is Sai Towers Publishing, run by the Sai Baba organisation' is inaccurate. Sai Baba Organisation is 'Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust' for which edits are already requested. Sai Towers Publishing has nothing to do with the organisation established by Sri Sathya Sai Baba. It is a private organization. The Book is a biography and is connected to Sri Sathya Sai Baba in that way. The intention of mentioning this in references is because the Book is a documented Biography available on Amazon https://www.amazon.in/Love-My-Form-Advent-1926-1950/dp/8186822771 Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust in no way is promoting the book. You can choose to either consider this or leave it Venkatant (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "alleged"

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: we would like to contest the word 'alleged' in the statement 'From a young age, he has been alleged to have been capable of materialising objects such as food and sweets out of thin air.' We suggest the word be replaced with 'From a young age, he has been reputed to have been capable of materialising objects such as food and sweets out of thin air.' Reason for the change: Who has to acknowledge this? There are several books written with documented evidences. There is no international body to accredit miracles. List the books with documented evidence below References supporting change: a) Love is My form ISBN 8186822763 b) Autobiography of peddabottu - ISBN 8192891933 Garli Sharada Devi alias Peddabottu had the unique distinction of being a contemporary to both the Sai Incarnations, Bhagawan Sri Shirdi Sai Baba of Shirdi and Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. Not only that she was a contemporary to both the Incarnations, but was doubly fortunate to be recognised by Bhagawan as a devotee during His previous Advent at Shirdi. This autobiography originally published in Telugu, now translated into English by Sathya Sai Shree Lakshmi is a lucid narration of the sweet but tough 'struggle and suffering' that the author had to undergo to set right the karmic imbalance in her earthly sojourn, to finally merge at His Divine Lotus Feet. c) Sai Baba - Man of Miracles by Howard Murphet ISBN : 0877283354 d) Sathya Sai Anandadayi ISBN : 978-93-5069-152-6 Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done "alleged" is an appropriate word here. None of the four sources you list meets the requirements for reliable sources, especially not for an extraordinary claim. --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, The word 'alleged' sounds too judgemental. In this instance, the claim is ordinary or extra ordinary, I wouldn't debate that but there are sections on either side. The topic is something similar to 'Sainthood' bestowed by Catholic church. For example, wikipedia doesn't state 'alleged' miracles for bestowing Saint hood on Saint Mother Theresa. Hence the request to be neutral. Also, there is no international body to recognize 'miracles'. Oxford dictionary states that the word 'alleged' means 'stated as a fact but without any proof'. Now there are books and wikipedia reliable sources which stay neutral and we request the same to be incorporated in wikipedia too. a) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/06/sathya-sai-baba is a neutral article and the editor of the article speaks about both sides of the coin 'There are riveting accounts by devotees of encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. One westerner records being handed a "freshly glazed" photograph, produced in the swami's palm as if by magic, with the address of his ashram on the back. "You've been asking for my address," Sathya Sai Baba tells him. "Here it is. Keep it in your wallet." There are numerous tales of patients beings healed by the swami's sacred ash. In one of the more fantastic tales, the swami is approached by a terminally ill woman; her only hope of survival is a treatment that is available exclusively in Japan, but she does not have the means to travel. The swami smiles, points to a door and asks her to open it. She does. On the other side is Japan.' b) There are published books with ISBN details given only to show other side of the statement and to see if the word 'alleged' or the whole statement could be 'neutralized'. c) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies d) https://www.theage.com.au/world/indian-guru-sai-baba-mourned-by-thousands-20110425-1du9s.html talks about both critics and believers (also see https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/theatre/miracle-man-20120507-1y8ys.html) Reference Believers - Sai Baba was credited by millions of followers across the globe with supernatural powers, including the ability to conjure objects out of thin air, remember past lives and cure terminal diseases. Critics - His capacity to miraculously produce gold coins and watches at public meetings was often dismissed as a basic magic trick -- criticism that did nothing to dent his popularity. e) https://www.foxnews.com/world/revered-hindu-guru-sathya-sai-baba-dies-at-age-84 'He was said to perform miracles, conjuring jewelry, Rolex watches and "vibhuti" — a sacred ash that his followers applied to their foreheads — from his halo of wild, frizzy hair.' Venkatant (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Add "recognitions"

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: In Recognition section, please add the following In October 2020, the United Nations (ECOSOC) has accorded an august global recognition to the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, for its unparalleled humanitarian work, by granting it a Special Consultative Status. In July 2021, the Government of Andhra Pradesh announces the prestigious 'YSR Life Time Achievement awards for Public Service' to Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam under the institutions category. Reason for the change: To reflect the recognitions and depict the updated status References supporting change: https://english.sakshi.com/news/andhrapradesh/ysr-lifetime-achievement-awards-public-service-sri-sathya-sai-central-trust and https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ngo901.doc.htm Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done The "Recognition" section is for recognitions given to the Sai Baba himself. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Benedea, Noted. Once the correction on Sri Sathya Sai Organisation to Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust is complete, will request for a change in the wikipage there Venkatant (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Colour picture

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed:Infobox Hindu Leader - Please can the picture be changed to Color Reason for the change: To show color photo of Sri Sathya Sai Baba References supporting change: https://media.radiosai.org/journals/vol_12/01JUL14/guru-poornima-sathya-sai-baba-in-bliss/6.jpg Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. The image has not been released under a compatible licence. There are some colour photos at Commons, which would (probably) be possible to use, see commons:Category:Sathya Sai Baba. --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, Please can the following image be used thumb|Sri Sathya Sai Baba in Prasanthi Nilayam https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba.jpg Venkatant (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC) While I am not in any way a copyright expert, I don't think an image that includes (on the image itself!) the phrase "Sri Sathaya Sai Media Centre revokes all licence" is going to be acceptable. You (that is, the Media Centre) have published the image at Commons under a compatible licence. When you then say "we revoke the licence" it means that you are withdrawing the licence. You can't do that once you have published the image (see commons:Commons:License revocation), and even if the text should be based on a misunderstanding of what "revoke" means, it is still there on the image. If you have questions about how to handle these matters, please ask them of the people over at Commons. I have changed the grainy black-and-white image to a colour image that was already at Commons. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea : The icons indicate commons license. The text can be reworded and pictures be reupload with following 'Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre revokes Copyright claim'. Will this work? Apologies but please understand, we are only trying to rectify links and right images. Will appreciate help in helping us do it right Venkatant (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea : The images are uploaded revoking copyrights claim by Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre and the icons indicate commons license. Web Source Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre a) Infobox Hindu Leader Pic, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_at_Brindavan.jpg b) Saibaba at 14 image in proclamation, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_at_14.jpg which is the right image of Sri Sathya Sai :::::: Baba at 14, immediately after Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 14, soon after proclaiming he is the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba a) Road side sai baba shrine in Ashrams and Mandir, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prasanthi_Nilayam_Main_Entrance.jpg , Prasanthi Nilayam the :::::: Ashram of Sri Sathya Sai Baba a) Sathya Sai Baba Samadhi Pic, may we request to be changed to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Mahasamadhi_without_Copyrights.jpg Venkatant (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) To repeat what I said above: If you have questions about how to handle these matters, please ask them of the people over at Commons. I have never seen an image in a Wikipedia article with icons and licencing information in the image itself, so I have no idea whether that is appropriate/allowed. Please also follow WP:INDENT. --bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea : We checked and here are the sources. On our website, we explicitly revoked copyright licenses for the images below Sri Sathya Sai Media Centre Images. Images uploaded in Flickr account with Public domain. Sri Sathya Sai at 14, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Prasanthi Nilayam Ashram , Sri Sathya Sai Baba Mahasamadhi . The Same images are now on Wikipedia. Now I hope there should not be a concern in changing a) Infobox Hindu Leader Pic, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_at_Brindavan_Ashram.jpg b) Saibaba at 14 image in proclamation, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_at_14.jpg "Baba at 14, immediately after Sathya Sai Baba at the age of 14, soon after proclaiming he is the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba" a) Road side sai baba shrine in Ashrams and Mandir, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Ashram_-_Prasanthi_Nilayam.jpg , Prasanthi Nilayam the Ashram of Sri Sathya Sai Baba a) Sathya Sai Baba Samadhi Pic, may we request to be changed to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Sathya_Sai_Baba_Mahasamadhi_at_Sai_Kulwant_Hall.jpg Venkatant (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Partially done, changed the infobox pic and the image of him at age 14. It is unclear how the other images relate to the existing ones, and it might be better to remove some images from the article altogether. --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea Thank You. I can explain about other images. Instead of Road Side shrine pic, Prasanthi Nilayam the ashram of Sri Sathya Sai Baba can be added. You could remove the image also. The other image in Sai Organization section could be replaced with Sri Sathya Sai Baba final resting place called "Mahasamadhi" in Prasanthi Nilayam which is head quaters of Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust. Venkatant (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Miraculous acts, sleight of hand

Extended content

Specific text to be added or removed: We request a change in the statement 'His acts were based on sleight of hand though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity.[9][10][11]' to 'His miraculous acts were considered by devotees to be divine work while critics believe otherwise. Reason for the change: The earlier sentence is not neutral as per Wikipedia guidelines and indicates that Sri Sathya Sai Baba was indeed doing sleight of hand and is highly judgemental. References supporting change: Sai Baba - Man of Miracles by Howard Murphet ISBN : 0877283354 Venkatant (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC) References  Not done Of course Wikipedia could not call it "miraculous", and it would be factually incorrect to imply that it was only "critics" who didn't believe in his supernatural powers. The suggested sources are not appropriate for an enecyclopedic article. That a magic trick is performed by means of sleight of hand is not judgmental but factual, and we do have a reliable independent source explaining this. --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Dear Bonadea, Sri Sathya Sai Baba did Magic is not factual. 'His acts were based on sleight of hand' statement indicates that it has been proven without doubt, which is not factually correct. This isn't a court verdict that Sri Sathya Sai Baba has done such tricks. On the contrary, two Indian Prime Ministers have highly spoken about Him, Atal Bihari Vajpayee (see responses section in same wikipedia page) and Manmohan Singh <rel>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies</rel> has said 'He was a spiritual leader who inspired millions to lead a moral and meaningful life even as they followed the religion of their choice' May I request you to use a neutral word instead of 'sleight of hand', and the reliable sources and neutral material added below for your reference. If you see Page edit requests, few other editors also felt that this wording is judgemental 'https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/06/sathya-sai-baba' can be referred which is neutral. Another reference 'https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies' - 'But though revered by millions around the world as a living god, he was a controversial figure, criticised by some as a fraud protected by political influence.' Fox news reference, https://www.foxnews.com/world/revered-hindu-guru-sathya-sai-baba-dies-at-age-84 - 'He was said to perform miracles, conjuring jewelry, Rolex watches and "vibhuti" — a sacred ash that his followers applied to their foreheads — from his halo of wild, frizzy hair.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatant (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Just a note on the sources: first, they're quite old. The "commentisfree" section of The Guardian is not usable because it's not an official article. Fox News should generally be avoided when better sources exist. Lastly a general comment: it is obvious to most (outside of some devotees) that the "lingam materializations" were simple tricks. —PaleoNeonate – 16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC) @bonadea @Paleo - The issue is with the judgemental nature of the statement 'His acts were based on sleight of hand though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity.' as if Wikipedia is ascertaining. The references provided are of 2011 and so are the references given in Wikipedia for this statement. The statement could be reworded and neutralised to the following 'His acts were alleged to be based on sleight of hand though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity. This is the change that is being requested to keep the 'Judgemental tone' out of the sentence Venkatant (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC) please can the requested changes be reviewed Venkatant (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Based on the prose, if we were going to change the sentence, it could be done as followed: "Multiple studies concluded that his acts were based on sleight of hand, though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity." Would that better attribute the claim? —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC) @Fred - The 3 references already mentioned for this statement, one is CNN article and then 2 books which state certain views. There was no such 'Study' in literal terms. I think a much neutral statement would be 'Critics were of the opinion that his acts were based on sleight of hand, though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity' Venkatant (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Request for the statement 'His acts were based on sleight of hand though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity.' to be made neutral in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia Page to Critics were of the opinion that his acts were based on sleight of hand, though his devotees believe them signs of his divinity Venkatant (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) @C.Fred: That's an OK phrasing, I'd say. @Venkatant: There are three sources in the lede but multiple sources in the article itself. (The lede does not need to include any sources, as long as it summarises sourced information in the article body). It would not be neutral to say "critics are of the opinion that...". --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @C.Fred : How can it be neutral to say 'His acts were based on sleight of hand'? It is judgmental. The sentence needs to be reworded to remove judgmental tone. While the suggested statement is perfectly neutral where two opinions are equally put across without Judgement. Venkatant (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @Venkatant: But there are not two opinions – there is one extraordinary claim which contradicts accepted mainstream science, and one counterclaim which is in line with accepted mainstream science. We have to try to edit in line with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability, which (among other things) means we have to edit in line with this guideline. It would not be neutral to say "critics are of the opinion that...". Please indent your replies on talk pages. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea - Like you said there is a claim and counter claim but the statement is ascertaining 1st claim i.e., 'His acts were based on' while devotees believe. Just to show the judgemental tone, if the same sentence was reworded other wise 'His acts were signs of divinity thought critics believe them as sleight of hand' it would mean Wiki is confirming. Same rationale applies for the existing statement. References to 2 books are accepted as 'Sleight of hand' but there are several books that talk otherwise. All we ask is not to pass judgement on Wikipedia page as per the Wikipedia guidelines. A book published cannot be a study. Book references provided earlier in this Talk page were not accepted citing various reasons. If the suggested change is not accepted, please suggest how this statement can be made Non-Judgemental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatant (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for indenting. It does not look as if you quite understood my argument; I did not say "there is a claim and a counter claim", but there is one extraordinary claim which contradicts accepted mainstream science, and one counterclaim which is in line with accepted mainstream science. Your concern is addressed in this guideline which is also linked from my previous post. Again, I think C.Fred's suggested change to the wording would be OK. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea - In the suggested sentence by Fred, 'Multiple studies concluded'. A study indicates 'the activity of examining a subject in detail in order to discover new information'. Now what studies are we referring to? How many years was this study and in which lab or Centre was Sri Sathya Sai Baba subjected to this study? You see where I am going with this. In the guidelines link, section 'Evaluating and describing claims', the neutrality suggested is "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." Similarly, the same guideline can be applied here to neutralize the statement than passing judgement. Venkatant (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC) @C.Fred and @bonadea - Can you please suggest alternative word than study? Venkatant (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC) "Study" is fine. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC) @bonadea Already provided reasoning on word 'Study'. There is no study and it would be biased as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view to mention so. The bias is quite clear in the statement. Let me take further opportunity to explain how biased the statement Multiple studies have concluded that his acts were based on sleight of hand or had other explanations that were not supernatural, although his devotees believe them to be signs of his divinity is. The word study needs to be justified. There are 3 references given for this statement. This statement removes the bias "Critics have concluded that his acts were based on sleight of hand or had other explanations that were not supernatural, although his devotees believe them to be signs of his divinity" a) CNN article written by Harmeet Shah Singh, and the article says "His followers believe he has supernatural powers. However, critics have accused him". There is no mention of study. b) The book Gurus in America by edited by Thomas A. Forsthoefel, Cynthia Ann Humes. The only reference to Sri Sathya Sai Baba in the book is in foot note talking about Human Values. This is available in Google books for anyone to research properly https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xHrZU7k7cy4C&printsec=frontcover&vq=sathya+sai+baba#v=onepage&q&f=false c) The book Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India talks about some group claiming they can do the same things. That is not a study but the group claims. Venkatant (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC) I agree with user Venkatant, and I don't believe in Sai Baba's miracles. The references do not support the words "multiple studies", and the first one simply explains why 'rationalists' reject the possibility of miracles a priori. --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:AD1C:44E5:558E:D079 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@CXZoom : Thank You, I can share required documentation to correct the article factually. For some reason, earlier Wiki editors displayed prejudice. Venkatant (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)