Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba

Has has an old peer review to which nobody ever responded. Neverending disputes between editors for which multiple RFCs, one mediation, and multiple request for arbcom verdicts, but with only one arbcom verdict helped only to some extent. Nevertheless, I think that peer review may help to improve at least some of the few uncontroversial aspects of this article. I will announce the peer review clearly on the talk page and will request warring contributors not to attack the reviewers. May be the very closely related article Prema Sai Baba can be included in the peer review too. See also the failed FA nomination in April 2004. Andries 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

1. You could expand a bit more the lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Something is wrong with note 63.
3. "Sathya Sai Baba in popular culture" is too stubby. Expand it or just get rid of it.
4. Get rid of the "See also" section. Incorporate the only link there somewhere in the main article.
5. Is all this long further reading necessary?
6. Categories at the end of the article are not correctly alphabetized.
7. "Sathya Sai Baba (born Sathya Narayana Raju on November 23, 1926 — or later than 1927[1] — with the family name of "Ratnakaram" [2]) is a controversial[3] South Indian guru often described as a Godman[4][5] and a miracle worker.[6]" Many inline citations in the middle of the sentence. Try to cite at the end of the sentence. Cite in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary.
8. The number of Sathya Sai Baba adherents is estimated between 6 million to 100 million.[8][9][10] Stylistically, it is not nice to have more than 2 citations in a row. There are ways to combine them. Check, for instance, the Tourette syndrome for ideas.
9. "It was said that instruments played on their own accord in his household when he was born [11]." Said by whom? Be more specific with such disputed assessments. And everybody believes that?! Aren't there any critics of this assertion.
10. Inline citation go straight after the punctuation markk, not before. Check WP:MoS.
11. "Since he was born after the Sri Sathyanarayana puja, he was named after the deity." I don't think this is a nice sentence. Think about an overall copy-editing.
12. Is "History and origins" the whole biography section? If yes, it is short, undercited (there are ^{[citation needed]} and a whole paragraph is uncited) and POV. We learn only what Baba and his biographer say. What about others? We need a more comprehensive presentation of his life and a more comprehensive analysis of the disputed elements of his life.
13. "Though the exact year on which he started his mission full-time is uncertain, it is a fact that in the 1940s he took the fakir's name." If it is a "fact" provide citation.
14. "The last paragraphs of the above section are a bit trivia and mixed. Personal information, something about an accident without coherence with the previous information.
15. What are ashrams and mandirs. Provide some information. The links are not enough.
16. Three paragraphs in "Ashrams and mandirs" are uncited.
17. "Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches." Citation needed.
18. Are Baranowski's claims undisputed?
19. In general, since there is a main article for "Beliefs and practices", this section could be a bit more concise. Too many details, especially in "Miracles"!
20. The presentation with bullets of the primary teachings is a bit listy for me. Personally, I'd prefer prose.
21. "Organizations" is undercited and with some red links. Why don't you create stubs for these links, if they are important?
22. "Opposition, controversy, and allegations" is tagged for POV. I don't want to express an opinion for the disputed issues, but before an article goes for GAC or FAC such issues should br resolved.
23. "The Indian President Abdul Kalam and the former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as well as other Indian dignitaries, visit the ashram and pay their respects to Sathya Sai Baba." This paragraph is uncited and not well-incorporated in the prose of its section.
24. In general, the article has to be moe coherent; possibly the creation of sub-articles would help you to construct a better structure.--Yannismarou 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 1. I agree. The lead used to be longer but was truncated only a few weeks ago. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 2. Corrected. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 6. corrected. Andries 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 7. I will change this, but I am not fully convinced that you are right in this case. It has been my experience in editing controversial articles that citation are requested for almost every word. In this sentence the birth date in particular is controversial. I expect that if I place all the references at the end then citations will be requested again for words within the sentence. Of course then this can all be explained in the talk page but this is all quite tedious. On second thoughts I think that using references at the end of the sentences decreases WP:Verifiability because it deprives the reader of information what sourced is used for each word in the sentence.Andries 09:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) amended. 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 12. There are no independent reputable sources for a detailed biography. The hagiography by Kasturi is al there is. Almost all other sources are based on the hagiography. Andries 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 13. Done. Andries 09:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad 17. Will provide citations for these uncontroversial assertions, but the priority for providing citations has been on controversial assertions. Andries 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 18. I am not aware of any reputable source that disputes Baranowski's claims. I do not believe that it Baranowski's claim belongs in the article, because it is somewhat obscure. Andries 08:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad 24. I think more coherence could be given by stating what the relationship is between SSB and the organizations that use his name. Is he a figurehead, spiritual leader, founder, de facto leader, de jure leader? In many cases I do not know and I doubt if reputable sources for this are available. What could be done is renaming the article Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement into Sathya Sai Baba movement and move some of the organizational stuff from the article Sathya Sai Baba to the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou, Andries is the former webmaster and current "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact" for the largest website attacking Sathya Sai Baba on the internet. He is wholly inflexible with other editors and thinks the article should read and look as he sees it. Kasturi was the official biographer for Sathya Sai Baba and Kasturi is often cited in reliable and reputable books that discuss SSB and his life. Although Andries is willing to selectively cite Kasturi, he refuses to allow other information from Kasturi in relation to Baba's biography. There are no non-devotee biographies on Sathya Sai Baba. So where are we supposed to get the information from? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can a poorly researched hagiography serve as the basis for a serious biography? It cannot. The hagiography is fine to describe the beliefs and practices of the SSB movement because stories about his life form a significant part about the beliefs and practices. Andries 11:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, Again, I am not the webmaster. Your own defamatory website identifies the real webmaster. Andries 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly researched" is your POV. The fact remains that Kasturi has been cited by numerous reliable and reputable sources. I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself to your redundant comments that is it okay to cite Kasturi in the Beliefs and Practices section when Kasturi's hagiography is not about beliefs and practices in the Sai Baba Movement. I have told you this numerous times before. Furthermore, on the main page, you selectively cite Kasturi's "poorly researched" hagiography when it suits your Anti-Sai agenda. You selectively choose what you want from Kasturi's books and then go around objecting and throwing your weight around saying Kasturi can't be cited on the main page because he has written a "poorly researched" hagiography, etc.

Regarding my webmaster comments, it is an indisputed fact that you were listed for years as the webmaster for the exbaba site. You changed your title only when it became an issue on Wikipedia. I even provided an evidence page regarding this issue for ArbCom. If you are saying the webmaster information is wrong, then one is left to wonder why you would put such blatant disinformation on your website to begin with? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster wrote it there, not me. It was left there mainly due to neglect. Andries

Andries, you never complained or disputed your webmaster status. You never refuted your webmaster status when Kazlev pointed it out. Only when your webmaster status became an issue on Wikipedia did you change your webmaster status to being a "contact". Then you changed your position again to being the "Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact". You admitted your site was threatened with legal action (which proves whose site is truly "defamatory"). You can attempt to refute this all you like. It won't change the fact that you allowed your name to be broadcast on the main index page as the "webmaster" for 3 years. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I only started complaining about it when it was used in the article which was in perfect correspondence with the guidelines for talk pages i.e. that the discussion on the article talk page should be confined to improving the article. Andries 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the reason to omit material from a published biography, even if some editors consider it to be a hagiography. That is what attribution is for. There is no harm is saying "according to a biography written by XYZ, this and that happened". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossie, that is exactly what Andries does with Kasturi when it suits whatever POV he is trying to include in the article. However, when it comes to other information, he says it cannot be included on the main page but is okay on the Beliefs and Practices page. This is wholly contradictory and one is left to wonder why Andries behaves like this. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, it is not just my opinion that Kasturi's biography is a hagiography. This opinion was also voiced by the journalist Mick Brown in the Telegraph. And if you read Kasturi's books then you will see yourself that it fits the literal definition of a hagiograpy. I do not understand why Kasturi's hagiography meets the very high standards for BLPs. Andries 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, for the very same reason you cite Kasturi to push whatever agenda you are trying to push. When it argues in your favor, you selectively cite Kasturi as a reliable source. When it does not suit your favor, Kasturi's "hagiography" is poorly researched and does not meet high standards, etc. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we then move all information sourced to Kasturi that is uncorroborated by independent sources? Andries 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the argument against Kasturi and then cite him according to your whims. The fact of the matter is that Kasturi is a reliable source and has been cited by numerous references in relation to Sathya Sai Baba. Therefore, citing him in relation to Sathya Sai Baba's early life would be entirely justified. SSS108 ^talk-email