Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Religion B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives
01 — 02 — 03 — 04 — 05 — 06 — 07 — 08 — 09

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains, such as Osho, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy. There is plenty of information on the wrongdoings of these fellows, including hundreds of lawsuits. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Yogasutras, The tibetan book of the dead, Buddha's gospel, not to mention the Bible and Coran, and these books will confirm what true masters state, such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Nanak, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Abedananda, Ramana Maharishi, Trailanga swami, Nagendranath Baduri, Sri Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Morihei Ueshiba, not to mention western masters and saints. It's all there, the same truth, the same words, the same life-examples, in very similar practices. So please, give us all a break. Denying what is writen here is nonsense. "Only fools follow fools".

Yogi. December 5th 2006.

Following a complaint to the administrators' noticeboard about disruptive editing, I have thoroughly reviewed the recent history of the article and the talk page. I have a number of comments.

SSS108

SSS108 (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring and has reverted the article a number of times wiping out substantial contributions. This diff spans 8 days and 48 reversions and yet the content of the article is almost identical, except for rearranging a couple of paragraphs. Reverting is not an appropriate editing method. Reverting 3 times on 19 Dec is arguably a blockable offense even though it is one less than a 3RR violation. Even reverting once every couple of days to a favorite or preferred version is a bad practice and will keep the article stuck in a bad state. SS108 has also engaged in inappropriate personal comments. Simply searching for the phrase "You are..." on this page finds it used more often by SS108 than all other editors combined. It does not matter whether a editor runs an anti-Sai web site somewhere else, as long as their behavior here is appropriate and follows the rules. Accusing someone of being "the most vocal critic and defamer of SSB on the internet" over and over again is not how you move forward on editing an article. It is also not appropriate to link to google searches or external web sites on the talk page in order to demonstrate that an editor is opposed to SSB. (It is also not appropriate for opponents of SSB to try and denigrate SSS108 because he is a believer. Just deal with a person's edits on wikipedia and leave the rest of the web to itself.)

UNESCO

In general I agree that it is better to cite the Telegraph's report of UNESCO's withdrawal rather than UNESCO's press release. Partly because press releases are by definition self-serving (even if the release is by a supposedly non-political group like the UN), and partly because the press release is not availabe from an official UN web site. Archive.org is probably safe, but for a controversial matter it is better to rely on the primary source, and if that is not available, a reliable secondary source. However, since the two sources agree, this is certainly not an important enough difference to justify an edit war. (Note than when Mick Brown is writing as a reporter the article should state, "The Telegraph reported that UNESCO withdrew..." because a reporter writes with the backing of the whole newspaper. When citing books, he would still be cited as the named author).

Sex abuse

It seems all parties agree to certain basic facts: A number of sex abuse allegations have been made against Sai Baba; charges have never been filed officially in India; he has never been convicted; he (and/or spokespeople for his organization) denies the charges. It must be possible to state these things in a way that everyone can agree to without just revert warring. I suggest that the section should open by stating clearly that there have been many allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct against SSB, but that no charges have ever been brought and SSB and his spokespeople deny the charges. Then name some specific cases. However, I also believe there is some truth to SS108's complaint that "Just about every single negative article ever published against SSB is mentioned in this article (with more and more wanting to be introduced), despite their redundancy about the allegations." In a case like this where allegations are widespread but unproven, I would be very cautious to only include the best sourced allegations. The inclusion of the two alleged suicides strikes me as a particular problem. While I agree with Fred Bauder that the Michelle Goldberg piece is useable (with caution) to illustrate the wide scope of the allegations, one of its uses here is to state that SSB's connections with Indian government officials have kept him out of court. This sounds like speculation by Goldberg, rather than reporting of facts, and should not be included.

General form and content

Overall this article is a mess, with poor formatting and grammar. For example, who was 18 when Dr. Goldstein's son was allegedly molested, SSB or the son? Discussion of gender changing and other miracles is carried underneath the sexual abuse section. There are many other problems. A great deal of progress could be made if the editors, particularly any native English speakers, would take a few days and undertake to clean up the formatting and grammar, without making any content changes.

Remedies against SS108

I am in a tough spot here. The edit warring and continued personal comments require some response. However, it seems that the only regular editors here have either a strong pro-SSB or strong anti-SSB agenda, and if I block or ban SSS108, I will have to personally watch the article to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into an attack article. I also think the disagreements here are rather small, and can be worked out if the editors involved can set aside personal issues. Therefore, I will issue a 48 hour block of SSS108 (24 hours for edit warring and 24 hours for personal comments) which will be suspended—I will not actually carry out the block if SSS108 stops edit warring and making personal remarks. I am also placing the article on 1 revert parole. All editors of this article are limited to one content revert per day (obvious vandalism excepted). Editors who revert more than once may be blocked for up to 24 hours per offense. Hopefully you will be able to discuss your changes and come to an agreement on these issues, or at least agree that as long as "the other side's" version is not much different from the way you would want it, you can let it go for a while to work on some of the more serious problem areas. Thatcher131 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Thatcher, for your exacting review. It was long overdue and thankfully you have provided some good guidelines for improvement of this article. I am especially encouraged by your ostensible agreement about this article being messy, which is something I've been saying for quite some time. As it is rather late here now, I may go forward tomorrow with my edits under your guidelines. Many thanks again for your valuable input. Ekantik ^talk 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I agree with you Thatcher, although there is more going on in the background with attacks on pro-Sai editors and anti-Sai Baba POV pushing in other wikipedia articles than you are aware. I think the 1-revert rule is an excellent idea and should have been used eons ago. I hope you'll stick around, I think your even-mindedness would help alot. Thanks. Jossi has also been a very even-minded stabilizing force also and I thank him or her too.Freelanceresearch 10:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on what Thatchers131 wrote wrote

"It seems all parties agree to certain basic facts: A number of sex abuse allegations have been made against Sai Baba; charges have never been filed officially in India; he has never been convicted; he (and/or spokespeople for his organization) denies the charges."

No, I do not agree with the summary

Hari Sampath has officially filed charges against SSB regarding the sex abuse.

It is also untrue that SSB has officially and clearly denied the charges. Some spokespersons refused to comment.

Some members and officials of the Sathya Sai organization admit that SSB does genital oilling when pressed, but deny that SSB has engaged in sexual abuse

SSB has been charged for violating the gold control act but SSB was acquitted.

Andries 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Sampath claimed he filed charges on behalf of alleged sexual abuse victims who were half-way around the world. He didn't succeed in filing the charges. Sathya Sai Baba has clearly denied the allegations against him and this was even reported in an Indian newspaper as well as Venkataraman (a Sai Devotee) on the official RadioSai website [1]. Sathya Sai Baba was not charged over any sexual abuse allegations. Premanand's petition was dismissed by the court. It did not formally go to trial and lawyers were never present on Sathya Sai Baba's behalf. Therefore, Baba was never "acquitted" because the case wasn't accepted. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this proposition a couple of times before and it was never agreed to by the editors of this article. In light of recent events, I once again suggest that any content changes that may be perceived as controversial (or that are known as being controversial) be discussed first on this talk page and consensus obtained before making the edit. This would not pertain to grammar or spelling. Before we engage in cleaning up the page, I suggest we see who is willing to abide by this proposition:

• Freelanceresearch: I Agree.Freelanceresearch 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Savidan: I agree. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ekantik: I agree, with the proviso that excessive discussion does not obstruct responsible editing; common sense editing should be respected. Ekantik ^talk 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Andries: Partially agree. I will discuss substantical changes before I make them, but I will not always re-discusses disputes that have already been discussed at length. Andries 10:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kkrystian: I Agree. Kkrystian^talk
• SSS108: I Agree. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with SSS108's proposal because he did not care about concensus but insisted on having the article changes as per wishes anyway. I continue to disagree with his re-structuring of the article that he introduced without concensus. If SSS108 is sincere then he should allow changing the structure back to the way it was before he broke concensus. Andries 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, all of us have agreed that we will have discussions and obtain consensus before making controversial edits. If you do not want to abide by the proposition, then you are compromising our efforts in building good faith. This is not about the past. It is about the present and moving forward. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I reasonably expect to reach concensus with some one whom I believe lacks both common sense and the empathy to assess sources? One example of your lack of empathy is that you dismiss ex-devotees as lacking in credibility only because they portrayed publicly for some time to be loyal devotees. I cannot disgress on my personal experience here due to the arbcom decision, but this argument makes a totally unconvincing impression on me. Andries 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I am not the only person who signed the proposition. This is not about reaching concensus with me. It is about a collective consensus. The fact remains that this article is highly controversial. Something has to be done about it. Refusing to cooperate with others will only make matters worse. Everyone else is willing to abide by proposition. If you cannot abide by it, I suggest you disengage. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on Thatcher131 Wikisunn wrote that information should be sourced to people who were there i.e. Kasturi and here he uses information sourced to Murphet written down as fact. How is Murphet a reputable source? I do not think that Kasturi is a reputable source, but Murphet is even worse. Andries 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I'd say for the very same reasons you cited Kasturi, John Hislop and Shakuntala Balu in the article. If one sets a standard, don't be surprised if others choose to follow it. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikisunn set her/his own standards that s/he broke immediately her/himself.[2]

Hislop, I can try to remove him. I did not cite Shakuntala Baba, you did. Andries 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, yes you did. You cited her through Steel [3]. I simply removed the intermediate source. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cited Steel, not Balu. You chose to cite Balu. Andries 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You cited Steel citing Balu. Happy? SSS108 ^talk-email 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel is secondary source reference that you changed into primary source references. Your behavior in this case contradicts your arguments regarding UNESCO in which you assert that only secondary sources should be used. Andries 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic logic, Andries. So now you are arguing that when you want to quote a reference from a book, you should not quote the book itself, but quote a book that quotes the book! You must also remember that Steel is not notable whatsoever. You object when others cite Murphet citing Kasturi, yet think nothing when you cite Steel citing Balu. The contradictions never end. SSS108 ^talk-email

Why not just cite both the archived version of their press releas and the telegraph article? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher already gave his opinion why. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Savidan, this was what I had been saying since Day One. With all respects to Thatcher, I found his comment to be ambiguous; either offline (though archived "safely") reputable press releases from non-political organisations are acceptable for Wikipedia or they are not. He also said that since the two sources do not differ, there is little scope for disagreement. I propose sourcing the information to Mick Brown's Telegraph article while providing additional material from the press release, which does not need to be sourced (per se) and gives a better picture of the affair to the reader. This is common sense editing that is informative to the reader. Ekantik ^talk 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to point out that G. Venkataraman, on an official Sathya Sai Website, discussed the Unesco Withdrawal and stated that Unesco formally withdrew their notice after being contacted by an Indian Ambassador [4]. I was recently sent a copy of the letter in question and the text is correct. Since this material is located on an official Sathya Sai Website, I believe that this material can be incorporated into the article. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The article is clearly an op-ed that may not necessarily reflect the truth of the events as they happened, what to speak of the fact that it is blatantly self-serving. Ekantik ^talk 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution would state the relevant facts. This type of information is allowed if it pertains to the subject in question and if it is taken from official websites associated with the subject. Venkataraman is speaking on behalf of Sathya Sai Baba and the allegations leveled against him on an official site directly associated with him. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being ambiguous. What I mean is that generally the more contentious a statement is, the better its sources need to be. Since everyone seems to be in agreement about the basics here, an argument over using the Telegraph versus archive.org seems relatively unimportant. In this case the newspaper is the better source, for the reasons I outlined. The UNESCO press release at archive.org should not be used alone. Does it add something else that the newspaper article left out? Then use both. The worst, or least good, source is the piece on the official web site. It is only even worth thinking about because it agrees with the Telegraph on the essential facts. (If it disagreed with the others it would be straight to the dust bin as self-serving, unconfirmed and self-published.) Does the official response add something important that is missing from the other two sources and is the additional material uncontroversial and otherwise acceptable per the self-published sources rules? If so then cite all three. If the official site does not say anything new or if what it does say is not appropriate per the self-published rule, then leave it out. Thatcher131 03:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, there is an official letter that Unesco wrote in which they expressed regret at publishing that statement on their site and removed it after talking to an Indian Ambassador. This fact was mentioned on the official Sathya Sai Site. I have a scan of the Unesco letter, so I know its true. Needless to say, no published source mentions this fact. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it needs to be left out, then. A reporter looking into the situation could verify the letter with UNESCO and then report it but we can not, and anyone could fake up a letter. I tend to think its probably true that UNESCO regrets specifically linking their cancelation to allegations of sex abuse (usually such things are done with a diplomatic "no comment") but citations need to be verifiable by any editor. In theory at least, an editor with access to the right kind of library could verify even very old books or obscure newspapers; we're not going to be phoning the ambassador. Thatcher131 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I just tried rewriting the Sex Abuse section along the lines of my previous edit of 19th Dec. Without explicitly mentioning the contents of the original UNESCO release in some way or form, none of the following points make any sense. It's impossible to work with it in it's current state. I just gave up, I'll need to devote way more time to it. For a start, all the points are in the wrong order. Exactly how much time passed for this article to be degraded into such a sorry state? Ekantik ^talk 06:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, why don't you tell us what exactly doesn't make sense. Perhaps what doesn't work for you with work with others input. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said, careless and disruptive editing over an elongated period of time has made the article a messs. Previous discussion has shown that it is impossible to work with disruptive editors. When I get some time (after the holidays) then a complete rewrite will be in order. See my previous edit of 19 Dec to get an idea. The basic point is that a history of the sex abuse allegations is in order and incidents placed in the correct order. Right now it's all jumbled up. Ekantik ^talk 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as you follow the suggestions made on this page about using a temporary page and letting others view and agree with your edits first, I see no problem. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very strongly with Thatcher131's comments on general form and content. In fact, I came to this article—not knowing anything about the Baba—after seeing it mentioned thousands of times on the RFC page, hoping to clean it up. However, if I'm not considered a neutral enough editor, I'll refrain from doing that at all. I would caution both sides though: no matter how much you succeed in pushing your point of view, if the article looks like crap, no one will buy it.

In general the article suffers from poor sectioning, bad grammar and syntax—part of which can be attributed to repeating the entire bibliography in the text—etc. This would take a lot of work on my part to get it up to snuff, and likely either SSS or Andries's faction would disagree with every change I make. So I ask: is there consensus on the fact that the article needs a thorough rewrite for general form and content; I am not interested in doing any research on the subject, so I will neither add or remove any references.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Savidan. Howevever, please tell us what changes you are proposing to make and how you are proposing to make them. We have a disagreement on removing dates (unless they are redundant). I suggest we go through the changes section by section. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savidan, the main problem with this article is that it needs more eyes so I hope that you continue to stay on and edit the article. I do not consider you to be a biased editor as there is no reason to assume such. Your comments about poor grammar etc. are thoroughly echoed by me and I firmly agree that the article needs a thorough rewrite.

If any editor disagrees with your edits then they can just proceed to re-edit (without reverting back to previous form, usually) the words if they can be improved. This type of editing will take the article forward and a slow improvement will be made, and is a better strategy that endless revert-warring. Ekantik ^talk 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savidan, we can also use this sandbox page: User:SSS108/Sathya_Sai_Baba to see the diffs before we accept them. If you like, you can create your own page. First, you have to save the article as it currently is, then make your edits and see if we agree with them. I think that would be the easiest. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this suggestion is helpful for general editing as this will take far too long. Perhaps this suggestion can be employed when controversial changes are proposed. Ekantik ^talk 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I proposed. Since Savidan is proposing major editing, I think using the sandbox would prevent an edit-war and will build consensus and good faith among all involved editors. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as an addition to this discussion on form and content, beginning sentences with "According to..." is an incredibly amateur style of attributing sources. This wouldn't be so bad if it was written once or twice in the entire article, but to use it for the beginning of a lot of sentences is poor readability. Please find an alternative grammatical way of attributing sources. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to keep the sandbox in a neutral location and out of user space, such as Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup. I would also recommend working on one section at a time, waiting for comments, then copying into the article. In the interests of peace I suggest that the cleanup process focus on issues of style, grammar, clarity, encyclopedic tone, and so on, and not deal with content issues. As long as it is only the existing content that is being cleaned up, the process should be non-controversial and non-confrontational, and there is no reason for it to take a long time. Rewrite a section, wait a day or so for comment or corrections, then paste it in and move on. Thatcher131 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following proposal for re-structuring. We re-name the entry beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement into the entry Sathya Sai Baba movement and move from the entry Sathya Sai Baba some organizational stuff to Sathya Sai Baba movement. Please note that the relationship between the various organizations and SSB should be stated as much as possible if it remains here. Is SSB a figurehead, founder, de facto or de jure leader, spirtual leader of the various organization? In many cases I do not know and I do not know how to find out. I heard some rumors about the power that SSB has that I will not repeat here.Andries 20:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to changing the name to Sathya Sai Baba movement (so far only to that). Kkrystian^talk 23:40 (UTC+1) 23 Dec 2006

The Organization section is small and well summarized and I see no reason to move it elsewhere. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the relationship between the person of SSB and the organization is totally unclear. They only have the names in common and promote their association with SSB. If somebody wants to remove the information about the organizations as off-topic then s/he may have a point. I think the structure of the article will improve if we move information from this article to the article Sathya Sai Baba movement that is is not clearly related to the person of SSB. Please note that lack of coherence of the article was one of the complaints during peer review. See the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 07:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to rename 'Movement' to 'Organization' or something similar? 'Movement' seems a little ambiguous IMO. Ekantik ^talk 07:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is somewhat ambiguous, but it is clear that you can be an SSB devotee without being affiliated to the Sathya Sai Organization. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Organization In addition, not all followers agree with all the doctrines, so it is not a sect in the meaning of Roy Wallis gave to it. May be Sathya Sai Baba cult would be better, but the problem with the word cult is that it has too many different meanings, though the SSB cult has been labelled as such by several reputable neutral sources, including Lawrence Babb and by Chryssides (though I think that Chryssides scholarhip is flawed). See list of cults. Andries 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, then it looks like both 'Cult' and 'Movement' are likely contenders. Either are good choices. Ekantik ^talk 07:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Movement" is the best term to use. "Cult" is a controversial word on Wikipedia and one can belong to the SSB Movement without belonging to a "cult". SSS108 ^talk-email 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "movement" should be used. "Cult" is a very bad term to use. Kkrystian^talk 20:29 (UTC+1) 24 Dec 2006

I fully appreciate Savidan's offer. After re-reading I have to admit that the article suffers from a tortured writings style esp. in controversy sections which is probably due to attempts to stay close to the sources. Andries 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can all sides agree that the link to the "official book store" is not encyclopedic and is commercial, and should therefore be removed? Thatcher131 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the person who adds this link has done so repeatedly under various IP's. I attempted to contact them under their IPs to no avail and I have removed that link perhaps a dozen times. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as removal is not contentious than any editor should feel free to do it whenever needed. Thatcher131 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I do not believe it is contentious. I have removed it several times and no one ever disagreed. The link is clearly promotional for a commercial site. However, the person/people adding the link are very persistent. I even included hidden text not to add commercial links in that section and it was still ignored. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to agree on which English should be used for the spelling of "organization". Since India uses British English, the Sai Org spells it "organisation". I corrected other spellings to reflect American English but have left the word "organisation" alone because I do not know which English version should be used. I suggest we use American English because organisation redirects to "organization" on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling should be consistent throughout the article, and should be based on the subject matter, or on the spelling preferences of the original major contributors. Your logic seems good here that British spellings should be used, in which case they should be used throughout the article, even organisation. Thatcher131 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, I think American English should be used. Is that what you meant? Or do you think British English should be used? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use American English. The Sathya Sai Organization writes its name with a z for reasons that I cannot understand. See their website. Andries 06:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, I think Commonwealth English is best. It appears to be the prefered form of English or the organisation. Although they may call themselves organization, they appear to use Commonwealth spelling in their website predominantly. E.g. centre. Bear in mind although organization predominates, it isn't strictly used in Commonwealth English, check out American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize Nil Einne 09:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the comments on Thatcher's talk page. Only a limited number of claimed miracles can fit in the article, and they should be clear and concise IMO. Accordingly, how about this change then: "Frank Baranowski, who specialized in kirilian photography and seeing auras, reportedly analyzed Sathya Sai Baba's aura and concluded that Baba was not a human being but a divine personality because his aura was unlike anyone he had seen before. Baranowski claimed that Sathya Sai Baba's aura was so extensive, it appeared to extend beyond the horizon and contained silver and gold bands that he had not observed before."--Dseer 21:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. It probably needs more of a rewrite to render it to an encyclopaedic formal tone, but the basic substance of it is 0K I guess. I'm in a rush and can't make a suggestion right now but if other editors agree then feel free to include it in the article and I'll probably "formal tone" it sometime later. Ekantik ^talk 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there information about the number of Sathya Sai Baba's followers in the introduction to the article? I think such information shouldn't be kept in the introduction. I think these two sentences (about the number of his followers) should be removed from the introduction and placed somewhere else. Who shares my view? Kkrystian 13:20 (UTC+1) 25 Dec 2006

Thatcher, Andries is making controversial edits without seeking consensus. Although the edits he made have been discussed before, and established as controversial material, Andries went ahead with his edits and has refused to abide by the proposition that everyone has agreed to. Such being the case, I feel I am entitled to revert the article more than once, but no more than 3 times, if needed. This is exactly the problem with Andries non-cooperation. Until all editors agree to the proposition, the edit warring will never stop. I have made my good faith effort and I suggest Andries makes his. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 reverts my edits without discussing the quality of my edits. This is exactly the problem with SSS108. Andries 18:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand with cooperation is an intelligent discussion of the quality of edits. I hope that SSS108 will start behaving in a cooperative way soon. Andries 18:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I had done was

1. Correct spelling mistake i.e. though ->through

2. Correct minor misparaphrasing of Kester

3. Removed redundancy in the statement that SSB has never been charged in India

4. Removed some bibliograhical information out of the article, as per Savidan's advice, for example the names of journalists when writing for newspapers and magazines as per Thatcher131 advice. Of cource, this information remained in the references.

Andries 19:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, until you agree to the proposition, all of your proposed edits cannot be accepted in good faith. And your edits have been discussed in plenty before. They are highly controversial. You should have attempted to seek consensus before making them. You did not. You cannot accuse me of not "behaving in a cooperative way" when you have not fully agreed to the proposition that everyone else has agreed to. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore your comments and questions unless they discuss the quality of the edits and improvements of the article. Here is one of your bad edits that you made

"In the India Today magazine (dated December 2000) no complaints had been filed against the Guru, by any alleged victim, in India, though it also states that the magazine is in the possession of an affidavit signed by the German Jens Sethi and that Sethi filed a complaint at the police in Munich, although he did not file a complaint in India."

Can you see the redundancy in the sentence that you introduced? This is supposed to be a an article in an encyclopedia and hence concise. Andries 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Trying to keep up with the edits made, I overlooked how that setence was poorly worded. I'll remove the extra line. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the list of people influenced by SSB getting too long? It will not do to include all of SSB's "influencees" in the infobox. Clearly it is also inaccurate given that the SSB-category listings on the Wiki-articles of those persons have been removed by other users. On what grounds is Indian PM Manmohan Singh deemed to be a follower of SSB? Ekantik ^talk 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are supported on these pages: [5][6][7]. Singh referred to SSB as "Bhagwan Baba" and said "The concept of Integral education that is a Divine gift of Bhagawan Baba to this Institute, comes closest to ancient ideals." Ekantik, even you said elsewhere, "It would not be out of place to take note of the fact that current Indian Premier, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is also connected with Sathya Sai Baba. The BBC 'Secret Swami' documentary broadcast a clip of Dr. Singh being garlanded while in attendance at one of the Baba's public functions." It's amusing you are asking for information that supports his reference when you already acknowledged the reference yourself elsewhere. The list is only partially done. Sathya Sai Baba is an extremely popular guru who has many high ranking and notable devotees. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion here on the sub-categorization of the Category:Sathya Sai Baba; and the pages that should be included in the categories of SSB's followers and critics. Your input and especially any citations you can provide in this regard, will be greatly appreciated. Abecedare 15:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are trying to rely on Sai Baba's translated discourse statements as reliable when we have already discussed how the translation from Telugu to English is extremely difficult (near impossible in some cases) and as a result there are many OBVIOUS errors in texts of Sai Baba's discourses. Therefore, english discourses of Sai Baba's speeches should not be used as completely reliable texts. ONLY the Telugu versions would be considered reliable in terms of accuracy. Therefore, the statements in this article regarding Shiva-Shakti contradictions should be removed since they were taken from discourses which may not be accurate. Freelanceresearch 06:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is an official publication. Andries 09:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea to insert Template:SathyaSaiBaba into the article. Who supports this idea? Who thinks this template should be improved or changed in any way? Kkrystian 11:37 (UTC+1) 31 Dec 2006

Let us change "reincarnations" into "claimed reincarnations". Also I do not think that SSB is notable for his interfaith dialogue. May be for his happy syncretism (uniting all faith), but that is a different matter. Also, I think that Benjamin Creme, like Manmohan Singh, Abdul Kalam, and some others are not followers. I know that there are some indications but I consider the proof insufficient. Andries 10:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be the template plus the infobox is too much. Andries 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint has been made in the second arbitration case that the year of publication and page nr.'s are not mentioned in the citations. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced. Can we try to add them? Before you take the effort to go and search in books and google, please note that a lot is already available in the history of the article. Andries 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should split the section "notes and references" in sections "notes" and "references". In the section "notes" we only mention only the author, year, page number. And in the section "references" we mention the complete bibliographical data of the used reference. See Mircea Eliade for an example of my proposal. If no objections are voiced I will proceed with this in a few days. Andries 14:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like needless extra work, if you ask me. The references on the Mircea Eliade article do not link to the relevant sections. On this article, they do. It seems to me that the current referencing is adequate. However, if you really want to show us how it will look, use the page that Thatcher suggested and show us what exactly you are proposing first. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to John S. Hislop's book My Baba and I Walter Cowan was resurrected from death by SSB. This is also described in Narayana Kasturi's 1961 "Sathyam Sivam Sundaram vol I.

• Hislop, John S. My Baba and I 1985 published by Birth Day Publishing Company, San Diego, California ISBN 0-960-0958-8-8 chapter The Resurrection of Walter Cowan pages 28-31 available online
• Narayna Kasturi “Sathyam Sivam Sundaram” Volume I 1961 “Chapter “Moves in His Game”
  ”He brought Walter Cowan back from the region beyond death because, as He said, "he has not completed the work he has to do." “available online

I was aware that the Sathya Sai Book trust was not very accurate in dating etc. but I am still surprized by it. May be somebody has an explanation. Andries 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well known fact that Kasturi's "Sathyam Shivam Sundaram" was revised. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave comments at talk:The Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of this newspaper is this by the way? It strikes me as a very obscure ad I doubt whether it is a reputable source. It does not even have its own Wikipedia article. In addition the following information sourced to it stating that SSB gives no private interviews strikes me as so utterly completely misguided that it should removed.

"Mr Bhagani also stated that when devotees are selected by Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room, and this is especially the case when women and children meet him."

Andries 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Voice newspaper belongs to the ABPL Group. [8] I do not know enough about the newspaper to pass a judgment about its reliability, besides the fact that it has been in print for 34 years in the UK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed in the British Library, under "Asian Business, Arts and Media in Britain: Asian Print Media" [9] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay. thanks. Here is what is stated

Asian Voice (Weekly)

English counterpart to 'Gujarat Samachar', with news and features aimed at the

Gujarati community in the UK.

London: Asian Business Publications.

This strikes me as not having a special expertise on SSB, low circulation numbers, and obscure. In other words, not a reputable source. Andries 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Asian Voice - More of a serious paper, with a focus on the Hindu/Gujarati community in London and Leicester. Circulation unknown, but was around 11,000 the last time it was audited a few years ago. Weekly. Audience much older than EE. Also organise the Asian Diversity Awards." and "Gujarat Samachar (Gujarat news) - A Gujarati language newspaper distributed principally around west London and Leicester and other pockets of the Gujarati community around the UK. No audited circulation. Weekly." [10].Unless the source is used to assert contentious issues, I would not see much of a problem, but I am not certain about "reliability" per se. You may want to ask UK based editors about this weekly newspaper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a problem, because anyone can claim to be a serious newspaper and the bar for inclusion has been considered too low by UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) and has been set very high for critical information by defenders of SSB. Blatant use of such double standards is not okay, I think. I mean, information from the Indian Skeptic seems more reputable, but that was agreed to exlude. Andries 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is used to source highly contentious issues and the Asian Voice article also states that Bill Clinton is a follower which strikes me as erroneous and makes the source even more suspect. Andries 00:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you may see what I mean by "taking the source as a whole" when evaluating a statement in a publication. The fact that the newspaper makes such a claim about Bill Clinton, shatters the credibility of that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times made a blunder regarding SSB, (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to All the World 01 December 2002) but does this mean that the article can still be be cited as long as we do not cite the blunder? I would say, yes, the NYT can still be cited in spite of its blunder. Can the blunder be cited? I would say yes, but I will not cite it myself. Andries 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "blunder"? a defamatory one? If it is such, don't cite it. If harmless, on the other hand, it may be not a problem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual blunder.The NYT described SSB as "Famous for seldom saying much in public even to his followers, [..]" Andries 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a factual blunder by a reputable source, esp. when they do not publish letters by readers such as in this case, is a VERY BIG DEAL. It is not just an implausible uncorroborated statement; It can be proven to be 100% wrong. Andries 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make the very same arguments about Kester's reference. Kester stated unproven allegations as facts, yet I don't see Andries complaining about that. Once again, another attempt to dilute the Pro-Sai stance. It never ends. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the comparison is flawed. The Volkskrant is a reputable newspaper with a wide circulation and with decades of history of reporting the debates about SSB. And Kester had very good reason to report the allegations as facts because they are very well documented. Andries 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are unproven and she stated them as if they were proven. I will wait for the ArbCom ruling because I consider you uncooperative. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]