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.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

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]

Complaint by Andries: Wiksunn's contradictory statements and actions

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

Response to Andries: After all the detailed discussions in Thatcher131 talk page related to Sai Baba, it must be clear what I meant by reliable sources. Only those authors / webmasters whose claims match with the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram can alone be considered as reliable sources. Using references with false claims / untrue statements by authors does not make sense in this context related to Sai Baba. If you want more clarification, we can have a detailed discussion on Howard Murphet in Thatcher's talk page on Sai Baba. Wikisunn 11th January 2007

I reverted most of your removals and gave my rather general reason for reverting you here. [4]. Andries 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5]. 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: [6][7][8]. 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]

This is insufficient evidence to prove that he is a follower. Please provide reputable sources instead of referring to possibly biased and self-serving websites. Throwing my own words back in my face from 2 years ago is also inappropriate behaviour. And do, the list is not going to be increased at the expense of the article. You need to ask yourself whether such information would be better off within the article (possibly in a new section) or if you want to have an elongated infobox to an already messy article. Ekantik ^talk 01:51, 9 January 2007 (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]

It is a well-known fact that the translations are not ALWAYS accurate Andries Only th eTelugu translations CAN be used and claimed to be accurate. And, as usual, you are using a controversial issue to push your anti-Sai agenda once again. I wll remove this controversial material. Freelanceresearch 07:28, 21 January 2007 (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]

Citations, maybe citation templates could be used. See my work on Shilpa Shetty where I have used citation templates for references. A different template can be used for bibliographical quotations obviously. See WP:CITET. Ekantik ^talk 14:31, 8 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]

If it has been revised with such carelessness after Kasturi's death (presumably) then it is no longer a reliable source. Ekantik ^talk 14:46, 8 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. [9] 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" [10] ≈ 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." [11].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]

Again, you cannot always burden others to make decisions for you in disputes. Please engage in reasonable discussion. Andries 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is to cater to the Asian community in Britain, providing Asian-oriented news at home and abroad. I cannot say one way or another how reputable their reporting is but I can say that there are several influential Sai devotees on the board. Ekantik ^talk 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, please provide the references to support your claims. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The title of the paper is itself the proof that it is an Asian localised newspaper. Ekantik ^talk 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is an Asian localized newspaper does not say anything about its reliability or lack thereof. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my point, Jossi. By the way, I seriously doubt that they have been in business for 34 years. That may refer to its parent publication Gujarat Samachar, which was first published in India. This is possibly what is meant by 34 years. The crossover to England and it's English equivalent (Asian Voice) is likely to have occurred in recent years, in the last decade or so. I could be wrong of course, but I've lived in England all my life and have never noticed these publications except in recent years. It's reliability is another matter entirely. Ekantik ^talk 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that a very obscure newspaper is used to source highly contentious claims without indication, let alone proof, that either the newspaper has good editorial control or that the newspaper or the journalist writing the article in question has expertise regarding the SSB controversy. As such the newspaper is not a reputable source for these highly contentious claims. Andries 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What controversial claims? Seem to be just reporting an opinion of a person. Also note, that expertise on a subject has nothing to do with reliability as it pertains to WP:V. What we need is to assess the reliability of the publication using common sense: is the newspaper well established? Does it have editorial controls in place? etc.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial claims listed here above, as I had already explained to you that SSB gives no private interviews and that the BBC is wrong and that the allegations are not true. Based on what? No, I agree that expertise is not important for WP:V, but it is for WP:RS. I suggest that the editor who wants to retain the statements sourced to the Asian Voice provides proof or at least indication that they have good editorial control. Andries 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this statement is controversial? 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. Does not seem so. Maybe I am missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is as blatantly untrue as saying that the pope is married. Andries 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that statement is the opinion of that person, and if the source is reliable, and the statement plausible, then it can surely presented properly attributed to the person that made the statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I have no intention to remove information sourced to reputable sources without consent of other contributors even if they are highly erroneous, out of fear that SSS108 will use this against me, even if this makes the article very bad. Andries 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, a few weeks, I made a mass deletion in the controversy section right before the holdiay season. I apologize for that, that was completely wrong and a disgrace to Wikipedia. However, I would like to still add a few lines, in light of a recent article sent to the subscribers of the Heart-to-Heart daily message from Swami that debunks many of the most widely publized attacks. Also I would also like to point out that the message of the Baba is very much active online, with a website, daily emails, streaming video of important functions, etc.Also, If anyone has objections, please do not hesitate to explain them to me. I am new to editing, and welcome advise. Otherwise, I will be going ahead with my edit after 24 hours.

(Ani 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

All this negative press that SSB has garnered is a false. Why put this and tarnish the reputation? There is no concrete proof about any of this. People who are ignorant just offer their opinions and hope to sway the masses. ALSO, why not include the predictions of Baba's birth given throughout various Hindu scriputures as well as Prophet Muhammad's discourse in Vol 13 of the Ocean of Light entitled the Mehedi Moud. He gives an exact description of Sai and what he is all about as well as the current situation of Muhammad's followers. Spideybat123

Well, Emperor Ani and Spideybat, I have just left an official welcome message on both of your talk pages. Among other things, links are provided to pages that explain what Wikipedia is all about. If you read through some of those articles carefully, you'll find out exactly why your comments above are one-sided (POV, point-of-view) and thus not suitable for inclusion in this article.

In short, this is not a "fanpage" for SSB but an encylopedic article that must be NPOV (neutral-point-of-view). Articles from SSB-oriented online magazines and so-called prophecies are thus not suitable for inclusion. Anyway, those introductory articles should explain what Wikipedia is all about. Happy reading. Ekantik ^talk 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make intentions clear, it seems. "Stances by devotees and proponents" is the section I want to add to, merely to reflect the fact that the Heart-To-Heart team recently sent out a letter to subscribers debunking a few accusations. I am sure that adding a few non-biased lines to report this recent development is not close to making this a fanpage, as you rather incorrectly summarised my future actions. I have information to add that will help a reader understand where the debate lays, and as I strongly despise heavily biased "encyclopedic" content, I will leave bias out of the few lines. And I think that if one must add information about prophecies, it has to have no bias as well. Also, Mr. Ekantik, I think calling the prohecies 'so-called' is not very polite. These can be added, provided suitable disclaimer is provided, and the information is provided in a very encyclopedic, no-nonsense way, the way one may talk about the Second Coming of Christ or the Coming of Mahdi, and in the way Mr. Ekantik is used to, I'm sure.

Ani 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole point of an enyclopedia is that it has to rely on reliable sources (see WP:RS). The site you are referring to is a pro-SSB site that is blatantly self-serving and has an inherent bias even if they don't mean it. This has been discussed briefly above (Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#UNESCO). In short, the site is not a reliable source of information and the development you are referring to should be reported in a source like the media (reliable newspapers and the like) for it to merit inclusion in this article.

Regarding your prophecies, they are a prime example of POV-pushing (even if you don't mean it to be) because not everybody interprets those prophecies in the way that you do. Christians and Muslims will object to the interpretation of SSB as the Second Coming and the Mahdi respectively, which is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Maybe a line or two about how Sai devotees 'regard SSB as the Second Coming etc. can be added but I don't know if this is the correct place. You can try discussing this at Talk:Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement and can possibly include your prophecies there. Ekantik ^talk 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure is Spideybat123 wants to refer to SSB prophecies as ones of the Second Coming. I would certainly not do that, it has no support that I know of. Although "regard" is an excellent word choice, I shall not be writing about prophecies. However, the 'rebuking of accusations' information was not and will not be sourced from the main SSB site. The Heart-To-Heart sent it. I would like to phrase the information in the way one would write about major fan websites' reaction to a huge rock band splitting. I am not sure if the author of the rebuke published elsewhere in newsmedia. For example, in a completely unrelated topic, the PSLV space vehicle launch in India was barely, if at all, reported by the international press. The media has always relied upon external sources for information, and nowadays, websites, memos, emails, etc. are often the source from which the media gets a lot of its information. I repeat that I will not be biased, but I shall do what journalists strive to do all the time, and that is to simply report the facts.

Ani 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples of what you intend to write here first. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisunn, Thatcher's talk page is not actually an appropriate venue for discussing momentous changes to this article, as editors here may not be necessarily aware of the discussion taking place there. Besides that, I happen to think that your edits are in violation of several WP policies including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Please stop reverting the article as this is already under 1-revert parole. Thanks. Ekantik ^talk 05:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, please see Unresolved problems in Sathya Sai Baba's Article and Howard Murphet from Thatcher's talk-page. Wikisunn, please ensure that you carry on any discussion here as this is the appropriate venue. You may also wish to observe that this article is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. Ekantik ^talk 06:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisunn, you accused me at Unresolved problems in Sathya Sai Baba's Article of not assessing the reputability of Nagel's writings. This is untrue. It was very extensively treated in mediation with the agreement between SSS108 and Andries that her somewhat outdated 1994 Dutch language University press article could be cited, but not her updated English writings. Andries 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure, many of the editors are already aware of this, Thatcher has created a special discussion page on Sathya Sai Baba in his talk page User talk:Thatcher131/SSB, as it will serve as a neutral ground. There are number of issues being discussed. I cannot start posting my questions here as suggested by Ekantik, as they are part of an ongoing detailed discussion and other editors would not understand what issues we are talking about, so I would suggest other interested editors to look at the above link. Wikisunn 14th January 2007

Wikisunn, you reverted this article with the edit summary that I should have discussed my objections at User talk:Thatcher131/SSB. I did reply to you before I reverted, but I will not extensively discuss the veracity of the assertions voiced in reputable sources for three reasons.

1. The first reason is that this this is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and Wikipedia only reports what reputable sources have written about a subject.
2. The second reason is that such discussions tend to be very tedious.
3. The third reason is without wanting to sound arrogant that I know the debate about SSB so well that I only occasionally hear new arguments, and only very rarely hear argumeents that are both new and convincing. But I really try to be open for evidence of being wrong. For me these discussions are to a great extent a waste of time.

Andries 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisunn's edit removed content and substituted poor headings, any basis for undoing his edit? Ekantik ^talk 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see that it has already been done. Wikisunn, please explain with reference to WP Policies and Guidelines your problems with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You cannot remove content based on what you think qualifies as POV and unreliable sources. If you continue to revert the article based on such flimsy interpretations then you will be guilty of revert vandalism. Ekantik ^talk 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, You may not be aware of this, the discussions related to these edits has been on going for several weeks. There is a whole detailed section of discussions in Thatcher talk page on Sai Baba related to this. Also there is an ongoing discussion between Andries and myself in Thatcher's page and we are waiting for Thatcher's comments related to this issue.

Wikisunn 16th January 2007

Yes I am aware of that sub-page, having participated there myself. My point is that it is not a suitable arena for heavy discussion relating to content on this article. Thatcher only set that page up due to conflict between editors that was occurring at the time, it is not meant to be a venue. This is the appropriate venue for discussing massive changes to this article, please try to continue the discussion here. Maybe Thatcher will appropriate your earlier comments here as well.

Well I still disagree with your views. You are misinterpreting Wikipedia policies. Ekantik ^talk 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, In Thatcher’s talk page on Sai Baba, there are number of very important discussions related to the article and this is not the only discussion going on there. I don’t see why I have to move a part of an on-going here, when the rest of the related discussion is in Thatcher’s talk page. A simpler solution will be that any interested editor can contribute their ideas in Thatcher’s page related to these discussions. An administrator’s specially created talk page is a better venue for discussing controversial arguments when two editors don’t agree on a point of view. I don’t see why there is any problem in discussing controversial edit issues between editors, in Thatcher’s Sai baba talk page when Thatcher encourages it, and also it will be a neutral ground where editors will use high standard references and involve in healthy discussions rather than getting side tracked with un-related arguments.

Wikisunn 17th January 2007

Alice Coltrane is another well known devotee of Sathya Sai Baba [12]. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am still waiting for proof or at least some indication that the obscure newspaper Asian Voice is a reputable source. I will remove contentious contents sourced to it in a few days unless such indications is provided
2. Please take a look at Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup and its history.
3. I am going to create a bibliography of Sathya Sai Baba. The books by SSB (Vahini series) are now excluded from this article because the list was deemed too long by among others SSS108. See e.g. bibliography of Mircea Eliade for an example.
Andries 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is not a reputable source. I have yet to see your proof. Provide the proof or I will revert. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no indication that the very obscure newspaper Asian Voice is a reputable source. The burden of proof is on the contributor wanting to retain the material. Andries 20:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The company that owned/owns the Asian Voice has been in business for over 20 years. The quotes are cited and referenced to the Asian Voice and the information about the company has already been provided. You have yet to refute it. Simply saying you don't accept it as reputable is not enough. Make your case. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, SSS108, salon.com that you still want to exclude as a source has extensive editorial control. Where is the indication that the very obscure newspaper Asian Voice has editorial control? Andries 18:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Voice is not an "obscure" newspaper/magazine [13]. They claim to have been in business for 34 years. You are simply trying to remove information that argues against your POV. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is too funny, considering Andries listed an Asian Voice article directed against Sai Baba in the notes and references section. See #96. New Allegations Of Abuse Against Sai Baba by Payal Nair, Asian Voice, June 26, 2004: Available online. Freelanceresearch 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this copy of the Asian Voice article from the anti-Sai site even has you know who's name and email address on it.Freelanceresearch 07:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned above: Asian Voice has not been in business for over 20 years. That probably relates to the original Gujarat Samachar newspaper (Gujarati newspaper published in India) and of which the Asian Voice is the English-branch, and has only been around for a few years. At least, I have not seen this newspaper until reent years after a lifetime of living in the UK. I can try to visit the British Library sometime next week to see if I can get some confirmation on this, although I wouldn't raise any hopes. Ekantik ^talk 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information you need: Ref SSS108 ^talk-email 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to see what exactly you are going to do with the bibliography section. I expect you will try to cite Brian Steel again. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, only works by SSB i.e. the Vahini series as per bibliography of Mircea Eliade that you considered too lengthy for inclusion here. I never agree with the exclusion, though I can understand that there is some good reason for your opinion. Andries 20:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries wants to add the following claim related to Sathya Sai Baba regarding changing his sex from Male to female and back to male from one instance to another for having Sex. Give all your feedbacks regarding this claim.

Alleged sex change

There are a couple of claims that Sathya Sai Baba can change into a woman instantaneously. For example, the former follower Keith Ord claimed that he personally experienced Sathya Sai Baba literally transform his genitals from male to female. Keith Ord said that Baba was not a hermaphrodite but, from one moment to the next, completely changed from male to female, with the corresponding genitals of each. Keith Ord felt this gender transformation was a type of miracle and expressed the opinion that Sai Baba lives on another level than mere mortals.[83]The former follower Alexandra Nagel also related the story of Tal Brooke, as taken from his book Avatar of the night, in which Brooke related an account from a man named "Patrick" who alleged that Baba had a vagina and that he had coital sex with the guru. She further stated in that article that this alleged sex change may be related to Baba's claim to be the incarnation of both the male and female aspects of God, Shiva and Shakti respectively.

Following are the references quoted by Andries related to this claim. 1. 1994 Nagel's article published by the Free university of Amsterdam press, 2. HP/De tijd, 3. Helena Klitsie's book and , 4. and Tal Brooke?

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

This exceptional claim about Sai Baba changing his sex from one instance to another is utterly absurd and ridiculous. In wikipedia reliable sources ::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source there is an article about using the best judgement of sources and common sense. When I asked Andries if he thinks it is possible for some one to change his / her sex from time to time. Has anybody accomplished such a feat till date? He said it is not possible but thinks this is one of Sathya Sai Baba’s tricks. How is it that such a trick is possible in reality?

When I had a discussion in Fred Bauder (arbitrator's) talk page regarding this exceptional claim, he also agreed that there is no good source to prove that Sai Baba actually did this sex change. This claim definitely lacks sound editorial judgement and common sense.

Wikisunn 9th February 2007

The reputable sources for the sex change claim are

1. Alexandra Nagel's 1994 university press De Sai Paradox, agreed by SSS108 and Andries to be a reliable source during mediation.

2. Several of Piet Vroon's articles (columns) in de Volkskrant (described by Nagel's 1994 article)

3. The article De wonderdoener by Piet van der Eijk. 31/1/1992, pp. 46-50. (described by Nagel's 1994 article)

4. The book Avatar of the Night by Tal Brooke and

5. The book Liefde's Logica by Helena Klitsie.

I hope that someone can explain to me why a claim, even an exceptional claim, that is sourced to multiple reliable sources should be removed. Especially SSS108 has something to explain, because he suddenly seems to diverge from the agreement made during mediation about the reliability of Nagel's 1994 article.

Andries 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wikisunn. This information should be removed. But at the same time, it makes one wonder about the mental state of the few alleged victims who claimed they experienced exactly that. The information about suicides should also be removed (even Thatcher alluded to it as well). This article is a mess and I am personally tired of arguing. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tal Brooke's third-hand account of "Patrick" in his book, it is amusing to note that Lawrence A. Bapp said of it, "The animus of Brooke's book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy." A interesting opinion from a scholar. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can include Babb's opinion too. I see no reason to exclude information disccused in and sourced to mulitple reliable secondary. (Babb and Nagel), as well as multiple reliable primary sources. Andries 11:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know from looking at the documentation that there is a high incidence of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia and admitted alcohol/drug abuse within the group of ex-followers. I do believe Piet Vroon is/was an atheist. I think he is the author who was found dead from a possible overdose. I went back to see if I could find anything on his death and I found a biographical article which states that Vroon was a psychiatric patient at the end of his life.

The supernaturally morphing genitalia claims seem very dubious and I question the mental state of those four or five persons claiming such. Especially when those and others are at the same time claiming Sai Baba is a fraud. Apparently they want it both ways.

If Vroon is a considered a reliable source when he is reporting supernaturally morphing genitalia phenomena, then maybe David Icke and his alien shape-shifting reptiles should be considered a reliable source too! The issue I guess is, if a supposedly reliable source really messes up should they still get a pass on bad reporting? I could detail the way in which each media outlet has really messed up on the Sai Baba issue by either not reporting the facts correctly or leaving out certain info which misleads the audience. For example, trying to give the public the impression Alaya Rahm (who also told Nagel he experienced the supernaturally morphing genitalia) was a child when he alleges sexual encounters with Sai Baba when the truth is he was an 18 and 19 year old adult at the time he alleges those incidents occured and he continued to go back for more interviews. Other alleged victims and ex-followers have tried to give the same impression that alleged vitims were children when they were actually adults. As a molestation victim at the age of 13 I know from experience that an adult is NOT traumatized in the way a child (who may not have protective mechanisms) is by sexual advances by an adult. Freelanceresearch 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you finally agree that the article is in a mess, SSS108, although several editors are of the opinion that it is so because of a constant battle between opposing editors. As for this sex-genital issue, I am going to post here a comment that I made on Wikisunn's talk-page before reading here:

Please note that I personally don't care if this information is removed or retained in the article or whether it is of important connection to the general sexual abuse controversy, as my main points are that it is sourced in reliable media and that I disagree with the self-contradictory rationales employed in arguing for its removal. Yes, editors are supposed to judge the best sources in a reasonable and commonsense way, but it is not for editors to analyse whether the information in reliable/reputable sources is true or correct vis-a-vis Wikisunn's question: "Has anybody accomplished such a feat till date?" Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research but is a reporter (see WP:5). The passage in question is just a small paragraph of the article and doesn't have to be removed because it disturbs the faith of SSB-followers. This article has seem far too much wikilawyering than humanly possible and its time for that to stop. Ekantik ^talk 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting is that Andries fights for removal of some ridiculous claims (that kirlian photography shows he has a divine aura) but fights for inclusion of other ridiculous claims, like gender changing. I think the purpose is to hold SSB and his followers up to ridicule, and that is unfortunate, because it is not the purpose of this encyclopedia to take sides. Also, at least some of the sourcing is third hand, which does not really qualify it as reliable, no matter who actually put it to paper. What I'm not clear on is if this claim was ever made as part of the official biography/history/mythology of SSB, or if the claim is only been made by a small number of followers who might be deluding themselves about their own sexual experiences. If the former, then I think it can be carefully included. In general, I think the article should deal fairly and neutrally with SSB's "official" life story and claims of divinity, while also dealing fairly with the reports and analysis of skeptics. If gender changing has never been part of the official SSB story, then I think it becomes necessary to examine the sources more carefully; one or two individuals' personal experiences about gender changing do not make for a reliable story, no matter who wrote it down. Compare with the alleged abilty to materialize objects--SSB has apparently done this in front of large audiences many times, so reports of the miracles and the analysis of skeptics is on a different level than sexual allegations made by just a couple of people. Are we dealing with many people who were interviewed and examined by a neutral scholar, or a couple of people whose stories were reported without critical evaluation by a writer who himself was biased in some way? Thatcher131 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher,

There are 2 issues here. The ridiculous claim itself is an issue. Second is the reliability of sources.

1)Problem with the Gender Change claim: The claim is questionable and suspicious. Wikipedia policy of reliable sources talks about the best judgement of sources and common sense. Even during by discussion with Fred Bauder about this claim he agreed that the claim lacks source about Sai Baba actually changing his sex. The following were his words, "I don't know that I fully understand the dispute about SSB turning into a woman and back into a man. I can imagine a good source for claims that he did, but not a good source for actually doing it. ". This claim definitely lacks sound editorial judgement and common sense.

2)Problems with the Sources: If you look at the sources like Nagel or Helena Klitsie they are all giving the story related by a third unknown person, they never said they experienced it directly. The next reference by Andries says "Several of Piet Vroon's articles (columns) in de Volkskrant (described by Nagel's 1994 article)". de Volkskrant paper is still influenced by the Catholic Christian Party and their centiments and it has published even other negative attacks on Sai Baba(Popular Hindu Guru). There is also a question of bias here.

If we look at all these references and the questionable claim there is no evidence to prove the reliability of the claim itself. Andries keeps quoting about the Mediation by BostonMA regarding Nagel as a source. Even in that mediation they never discussed about this claim.

I think this claim should not be included in this article as the source itself is not reliable and also the claim is ridiculous and lacks common sense and will further disrupt the article which has under gone through several edit wars and 2 arbitrations.

Wikisunn 10th February 2007

Wiksunn, your comments about de Volkskrant are so completely misguided that I suggest you ask other Dutch people about it. The gender change claim is mentioned in the best available source possible for Wikipedia i.e. a peer reviewed university press article about the subject. (Nagel 1994 De Sai Paradox) I strongly object to your repeated removal of well sourced material on such flimsy motivations. I consider your behavior disruption of Wikipedia. Andries 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, When you wrote the bibliography you discussed with every body but for this exceptional claim you never discussed with any editor and you added it to the article. You are the one pushing your POV and adding controversial claims to the article. Also you told me in the discussion that sss108 never opposed this claim, now you saw how he is against adding this claim. So far you are the only person wanting to add this claim and claiming that the sources are reliable. Arbitrator, administrator and all other editors so far are all against adding this claim as it is ridiculous as well the sources are not reliable and questionable. Wikisunn 12th February 2007

In fairness to Andries, it was I who brought the objections about the aura information and, in transparency, I still hold those opinions; the sex-change allegations are better sourced than the aura information which is ultimately the testimony of one man who claimed he could see fantastic things in SSB's aura, but I agree with your general comment on this issue. As for your questions perhaps Andries can provide more information from those Dutch sources but what I know from Tal Brooke's side is that it is a third-party claim, namely that he "heard" the story that SSB allegedly had a vagina (malformed genitals either way, possibly a eunuch) from a "Patrick" who was allegedly molested by SSB. Brooke himself reported molestation performed on him by SSB. I agree that the subject of SSB's genitals cannot be precisely sourced to Brooke since he cannot provide verification for his claims. And perhaps Andries can provide more information about other sources.

As far as molestees possible self-delusion, this is actually the problem; there are so many wild and unverifiable "fantastic" claims about SSB's paranormal abilities that it is hard to discern what is true and what isn't. For example there are two popular stories about SSB ressurecting the dead, and one of these has been analysed and found to be non-viable. Also considering the "hair dye" example above and if I may be allowed to make a point, I personally find it rather hypocritical of SSB-followers to believe in all sorts of claims about SSB's paranormal abilities but cannot bring themselves to believe that he may have the power to transform his own genitals for whatever purpose. But if you ask me, I personally think this is all very weird and that is why I would stick to the general sex-abuse controversy. Ekantik ^talk 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 one of the reputable sources describing this claim is the 1994 article by Nagel that had already been extensively disccused and agreed to be a reputable source during mediation. User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Nagel_as_source.

You asked

"Are we dealing with many people who were interviewed and examined by a neutral scholar, or a couple of people whose stories were reported without critical evaluation by a writer who himself was biased in some way?"

There are quite a lot of young man who report these claims. Some of them were interviewed by Nagel and I would argue that the former is the case.

Andries 08:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, The sex change claim is made by former followers, not by current followers. I am aware that the sex change claim weakens the case of former followers. So your accusation that I want to ridicule SSB by inclusion of this claim is completely untrue. Andries 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, the sex change claim is reported in scholarly sources. The aura/kirlian claim not. Andries 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, do you believe that Sathya Sai Baba can miraculously transform his genitals? I would appreciate an answer.

I also find it amusing that Ekantik, of all people, is attempting to point out strange beliefs held by Sai Devotees when Ekantik is a Hare Krishna Congregational Member and a Gaudiya Vaishnava who has openly defended his belief that Lord Krishna literally manifested 16,000 seperate human forms, married 16,000 seperate women, copulated with each one of them and generated innumerable offspring. Sanjay also believes that Lord Krishna held an entire mountain aloft on his pinky finger for 7 days and nights and defends scriptures that say the Lord Vishnu (a male) transformed himself into a woman (Mohini Devi). So it appears that Ekantik and Sai Devotees are not really that different as far as strange beliefs and miracle stories are concerned. I can't help to wonder why Ekantik mocks strange beliefs when he holds them himself.

Funny how Ekantik and Andries (critics of Sathya Sai Baba) want to promote "well sourced" stories about gential switch tales and think the aura reference (written by a doctor in a well known Sri Lankan newspaper) is not "well sourced". This whole thing is POV and the attempt to skew the article with a POV is evidenced by these discussions. Good luck Wikisunn. You see what you are up against? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, I strongly object against your personal remarks regarding Ekantik. Andries 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I strongly object to Ekantik's personal and off-topic remarks against Sai devotees. His comments are irrelevant to the article. I don't see you making any complaints against him. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, if you strongly object then you could have just said that instead of launching personal attacks upon other editors. Instead of trying to turn every single discussion section into a pointless war with everyone, you'll take the time to notice that I was responding to Thatcher's point about "self-delusion of molestees". If some molestees claim that they saw SSB switch his genitals and that such a belief is "strange", the belief of SSB devotees can also be called into question. It is your opinion that this is off-topic, which is wrong because such beliefs are contained within the article. For example, the article claims that SSB ressurected a man from death. Following Wikisunn's line of reasoning: "Has anybody accomplished such a feat till date?" In that context it appears that Erlendur Haraldsson (a scientific researcher who researched SSB's miracles) did not think that the "ressurected" person even died in the first place. Mind you, this is a talk-page for discussion about the article, not the article itself.

Furthermore, you are not here as a representative of the interests of "Sai devotees" nor are you here to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to defend them. So kindly refrain from indulging in disparaging and personal attacks on other editors and making frivolous objections that distract the general discussion. Ekantik ^talk 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. As if my religious beliefs (which are also the religious beliefs of all Hindus) have any bearing on this discussion about SSB. SSS108 is deliberately trying to malign me by following an identical line of argument that he constantly employs in his off-wiki attacks against me, which is thoroughly non-productive in a discussion like this. It may also be interesting to point out that the religious beliefs of other editors that SSS108 ridicules are themselves fully supported and endorsed by SSB. Self-contradiction if ever there was one.

As for my supposed "mocking" of strange beliefs, I similarly find it amusing that SSS108 supposedly supports the contention that SSB miraculously changed his hair colour in an instant, raised people from the dead, responsible for the fall of Communism, etc etc. I generally object to the inclusion of information about SSB's aura because it is pseudoscientific and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. Another problem I have with it is that it is not sourced reputably. Note that I do not object to the information itself as long as a proper reputable and reliable source is found to support it. There is none, because the topic of auras itself is pseudoscientific. Perhaps some of the POV-warriors here will have to accept that fact and move on. Ekantik ^talk 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, to the contrary, if you do not want your religious beliefs discussed, you should not attempt to portray yourself as some sort of rational and logical person who finds the beliefs of Sai Devotees amusing and strange. You hold very similar beliefs in your own belief system. And where did I say I believe the claims that Baba miraculously changed his hair color, raised people from the dead and is responsible for the fall of communism? I never stated that I believe in these things and I would like you to back up your comments (which you never do). I wonder why Andries, the Wiki-Patrol, isn't admonishing you for your unsupported personal comments against me? SSS108 ^talk-email 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, you are to be reminded of the principle of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on contributors. If you continue to bring in personal remarks that have no place in Wikipedia (especially when such things can be stated during current ArbCom proceedings) then I trust you will not protest when a complaint of sorts is lodged against you. In essence, please refrain immediately from making personal remarks directed at other editors. If you feel that you cannot follow Wikipedia policies in this way, then please take the time to consider your participation here. Ekantik ^talk 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, you are reminded that you were the one who made off-topic comments about Sai Devotees that is not relevant to the article. Stay on topic. Please stop with your public posturing. Anyone interested in your real extra-Wikipedia activities against Sathya Sai Baba can read the Evidence Section for the new RFA. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108 if you want to get petty, your comment about the mental states of sexual molestees was not only off-topic, but repulsive. Congratulations for violating WP:DE. I'd like to submit that SSS108's recent and continual behaviour in this discussion (vis-a-vis pointless personal attacks on other editors) is akin to trolling, and so I would like to employ WP:DENY on SSS108 and I would appreciate it if other editors did the same. Unless and until SSS108 feels that he can make substantial and relevant contributions to this discussion he should be denied recognition. Regards, Ekantik ^talk 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that these genital-switch claims seem to be related SSB's own public statements about his androgynous nature. He has claimed to be a dual incarnation of Shiva and Shakti (male and female Hindu deities) and, according to semi-biographical sources, was notably effeminate in his youth that was exemplified by his occasional wearing of saris and other female-type attire. Ekantik ^talk 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSB wore saris and other attire in plays he performed in his youth, which is a common practice in India. SSB's alleged effeminacy is no different than Lord Krishna's well known effeminancy that you seem to have no problem with whatsoever. And you did not answer the question: Do you or do you not believe in the alleged genital-change stories? SSS108 ^talk-email 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing saris is dramas is completely different to wearing saris during public functions and religious celebrations where he was worshipped as an incarnation of Durga or similar goddesses, and also at the inauguration of his new temple. Ekantik ^talk 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you Ekantik, that auras are not pseudoscientific. Krystian 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you, Kkrystian, that I heavily protest against your usage of my real name at Wikipedia, and have takne the liberty of replacing it with my user name. I would also like to inform you that auras as pseudoscientific; see earlier discussions on this issue at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/archive9#Frank_Baranowski where I made my point about this. The facts are that auras are not scientifically recognised, and that kirlian cameras can capture auras is a claim made only by the founder (Semyon Kirlian). Thus it is pseudoscientific. Ekantik ^talk 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if Kirlian/Aura is pseudoscience? This article is full of unscientific/pseusoscientif claims. What matters is that the gender change has been reported by scholarly sources, and the kirlian/aura story not. Thousands of miracles have been reported about SSB or attributed to SSB. If we write down miracle stories then we should only write down the miracles that have been described in scholarly sources. Andries 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with that. In that sense we return to one of my original points, that this claim about auras is from an op-ed obviously biased (devotional) and uncritical article in a newspaper, not a scholarly source ny any stretch of the imagination. Although I agree that this is a relatively small issue and we should concentrate on the bigger ones. Ekantik ^talk 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against including it. Krystian 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

1. The claim itself is not presented as a fact. It is attributed to specific people as reported in reliable sources.
2. The fact reported in the disputed paragraph is that people have claimed a morphing ability.
3. Notable (scientific and popular) sources have for some reason or another deemed this information relevant to the subject.
4. The wording of the paragraph is neutral and does not convey approval or disapproval.

The question whether or not this has really happened is not addressed in the para. If this question is addressed in relevant sources, it should be added to the paragraph. Any sourced accusations or admissions that the people who claim this are trying to hurt the reputation of SSB (whoever that may be, I just came across this article tracking possible vandalism) should also be included.

In short, the paragraph presented at the top of this section in itself fulfills all requirements and can go into the article. Not having read the article I cannot fully comment on other considerations, such as Undue Weight. AvB ÷ talk 08:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant independently checked translations regarding the gender change. User_talk:Andries/Translations_SSB_1. I will give a point for point rebuttal to user:Wikisunn's objections to inclusion of the gender change. Andries 09:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my comment was based on my own reading of the Dutch sources. The one I found most interesting/relevant/verified was Vroon's published report on a telephone call to the person who claims to have witnessed a supernatural sex change. ("Here comes the supernatural anaesthetist...") Vroon, unlike suggested above (a suggestion that escapes removal based on WP:BLP only because Vroon is dead) was totally compos mentis when he wrote that. A keen, intelligent observer and writer. AvB ÷ talk 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avb, thanks, If you live in the Netherlands then your comments about Wikisunn's assertion that "de Volkskrant paper is still influenced by the Catholic Christian Party" would be appreciated. I am no fan of Piet Vroon's writings. Andries 13:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I live in the NL. The Volkskrant paper is one of the Netherlands' two "quality newspapers", the other one being the NRC Handelsblad. The Volkskrant is fiercely independent, regardless of its Catholic roots. No truly Catholic paper would ever give Vroon, a skeptic and atheist, a platform. For more or less fundamentalist newspapers, look at the Reformatorisch Dagblad or the Nederlands Dagblad; for a moderate protestant Newspaper look at Trouw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avb (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Andries I will like to point on how you have been contradicting your own statements regarding the Sathya Sai Baba gender change claim. You said during our discussion in Charles Mathew(arbitrator’s page) the following statement. “Nagel gave the story of a named person called Keith Ord. Nagel found it remarkable that Ord confirmed Brooke's bizarre story, though like Babb she critized (some aspects of) Tal Brooke's writings.” Andries 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) . This statement is in contradiction to your earlier statements.

• You agree Nagel herself called it a bizarre story
• You agree even Nagel Criticized some aspects of) Tal Brooke's writings
• Also your next statement about Piet Vroon's writings whom you want to use as a source for this claim is also contradictory. Your exact words were “ I am no fan of Piet Vroon's writings”.

Look at your own statement for a moment you agreed that Nagel gave the story of a named person called Keith Ord. You want to add a derogatory claim in the article about Sai Baba because Nagel has written a story of unknown person? Now you want to show a story as a evidence / reliable source for this exceptional claim?. I will also like to point that your statements related to your sources you want to use are neither consistent and you keep contradicting yourself. I am not the only editor who opposed this ridiculous claim there has been a strong opposition from all the other editors and even the administrator questioned adding this claim. I have copied the comments made by the other editors involved in the Sathya Sai article who disagree publishing this claim.

Opposition to the claim – comments by editors, administrator and arbitrator

I agree Wikisunn. This information should be removed. SSS108 talk-email 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The supernaturally morphing genitalia claims seem very dubious and I question the mental state of those four or five persons claiming such. Especially when those and others are at the same time claiming Sai Baba is a fraud. Apparently they want it both ways. Freelanceresearch 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim is questionable and suspicious. Wikipedia policy of reliable sources talks about the best judgement of sources and common sense.Wikisunn 10th February 2007

Please note that I personally don't care if this information is removed or retained in the article or whether it is of important connection to the general sexual abuse controversy, as my main points are that it is sourced in reliable media and that I disagree with the self-contradictory rationales employed in arguing for its removal. Ekantik talk 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If gender changing has never been part of the official SSB story, then I think it becomes necessary to examine the sources more carefully; one or two individuals' personal experiences about gender changing do not make for a reliable story, no matter who wrote it down. Compare with the alleged abilty to materialize objects--SSB has apparently done this in front of large audiences many times, so reports of the miracles and the analysis of skeptics is on a different level than sexual allegations made by just a couple of people. Are we dealing with many people who were interviewed and examined by a neutral scholar, or a couple of people whose stories were reported without critical evaluation by a writer who himself was biased in some way? Thatcher131 05:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I fully understand the dispute about SSB turning into a woman and back into a man. I can imagine a good source for claims that he did, but not a good source for actually doing it. Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the reliability of sources used for the claim: Other editor's comments

1) The book Avatar of the Night by Tal Brooke. And Nagel used this claim by Tal Brooke in 1994 university press De Sai Paradox.

• Regarding Tal Brooke's third-hand account of "Patrick" in his book, it is amusing to note that Lawrence A. Bapp said of it, "The animus of Brooke's book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy." A interesting opinion from a scholar. SSS108 talk-email 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the subject of SSB's genitals cannot be precisely sourced to Brooke since he cannot provide verification for his claims. Ekantik talk 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

2) Several of Piet Vroon's articles (columns) in de Volkskrant (described by Nagel's 1994 article)

• I know from looking at the documentation that there is a high incidence of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia and admitted alcohol/drug abuse within the group of ex-followers. I do believe Piet Vroon is/was an atheist. I think he is the author who was found dead from a possible overdose. I went back to see if I could find anything on his death and I found a biographical article which states that Vroon was a psychiatric patient at the end of his life. If Vroon is a considered a reliable source when he is reporting supernaturally morphing genitalia phenomena, then maybe David Icke and his alien shape-shifting reptiles should be considered a reliable source too! The issue I guess is, if a supposedly reliable source really messes up should they still get a pass on bad reporting? I could detail the way in which each media outlet has really messed up on the Sai Baba issue by either not reporting the facts correctly or leaving out certain info which misleads the audience. Freelanceresearch 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

3. The book Liefde's Logica by Helena Klitsie.

• If you look at the sources like Nagel or Helena Klitsie they are all giving the story related by a third unknown person, they never said they experienced it directly. Wikisunn 10th February 2007

The Claim has been opposed strongly by all the editors, sources have been questioned for reliability. Inspite of all this opposition if you still add this ridiculous claim to the article and disrupt it, then I have no other option other than to revert your changes and to complain about your POV pushing as this claim is bizarre / ridiculous and sources are not reliable.

Wikisunn 17th February 2007

Editor opinions are OR unless sourced. Assuming that Andries has contradicted himself, this is still completely unimportant. Wikipedia is all about sources.

Vroon was NOT an ex-follower of SSB.

Like many others, Vroon was not himself when his death was imminent. Suggesting that this invalidates his writings is the epitomy of misunderstanding WP:V. Vroon at the time was published in reliable sources such as the Volkskrant and other independent publishers. AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to explain all of this to Wikisunn repeatedly but he still does not understand WP:RS or WP:BLP. I'd just like to clarify my comment as quoted by Wikisunn as an example of opposing the insertion into the article; I do not oppose the insertion of the claim into the article, I just said that I do not care if it is inserted or if it isn't. What matters is that the claim is reliably sourced, that's all. According to the discussion above (and all the other histories of it), the claim does turn out to be reliably sourced and is thus fit for inclusion into the article. Ekantik ^talk 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisunn's verbose comments cannot obfuscate the core issue i.e. that the gender change has been extensively discussed in reliable sources and as such belong in the article. Again, I want to emphasize that the gender change was extensively discussed in a university press peer reviewed article about SSB. (Nagel 1994 De Sai Paradox) I also protest against Wikisunn's ad hominem comments against former followers (that he copied from Freelanceresearch). 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, the sources you want to use are not reliable and they have been strongly opposed by the other editors. Nagel herself called the claim "Bizarre" and she has used Tal Brooke story as her reference in De Sai Paradox. As Thatcher pointed out earlier, gender changing has never been part of the official SSB story, one or two individuals' personal experiences about gender changing do not make for a reliable story. As sss108 pointed out Lawrence A. Bapp said of it, "The animus of Brooke's book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy." You agreed in your statement that even Nagel Criticized some aspects of) Tal Brooke's writings. Considering all thes facts the gender change claim cannot be added as the sources are not reliable and the claim lacks sound editorial judgement and common sense. Wikisunn 20th February 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikisunn (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Girija Prasad Koirala is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba: See Ref SSS108 ^talk-email 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I find it appalling that you continue to add names without responding to the points I made above. Do you think the inclusion of a long list of names harms or helps the article? Don't you think such information would be better off placed somewhere appropriate within the article instead of cluttering up the page which has two types of infobox templates? Ekantik ^talk 02:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED!!!! Smith Jones 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An uncommented "6 to 100 million" is just not useful. It appears that neutral estimates range around 10 million, sceptics go as low as 6 M and adherents as high as "50 to 100 M". The article text should reflect this. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC documentary reported 30 million. Ekantik ^talk 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that SSB is in the news again, after various sections of the Indian population have taken objection to his remarks about the futility of creating a separate Telangana state. Reliable sources galore, this should be added into the article in which section? I was also thinking if there is call for a separate sub-section on SSB's political connections, of which much has been written about in reliable sources? Maybe even a separate article? Comments please? Ekantik ^talk 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much? Swami is mostly apolitical Krystian 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC fim documented his relationships with Indian Presidents and Prime Ministers past and present, what to speak of ordinary govt. ministers and other politicians who regularly visit him to seek his advice on political matters. There is a heavy show of politicians on show on major occasions such as SSB's birthday, and the current President (Abdul Kalam) turned up to celebrate SSB's 81st birthday in Nov 2006. Only very recently it was in the news that he visited Chennai to offer assistance in some water project or other, and met several govt. ministers there. SSB has also publicly praised some politicians and PMs in his discourses, and publicly supported them during a crisis in their tenures. In the light of this and many more easily verifiable facts, it is impossible to say that SSB is 'apolitical'. Ekantik ^talk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow I think this recent information is notable enough to go in the article. Ekantik ^talk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The news that Sathya Sai Baba made a comment about Telangana is true.

When did he make this statement?

Sathya Sai Baba was given a big felicitation in Chennai Nehru stadium organised by the Chennai Citizens Conclave for thanking him for the 200 crore water project which brought water from the River Krishna in Andhra Pradesh to Chennai city. Four chief ministers attended the function. The big news about this event was that Sai Baba was sharing the same dias with Karunanidhi(CM of Chennai) who is a very well known hardcore atheist against Hindu gurus / godman and that Karunanidhi was felicitating Sai Baba. This was covered in all newspapers. http://www.indianexpress.com/story/21444.html

• http://www.indiaenews.com/politics/20070121/36546.htm
• http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/18/stories/2007011817000600.htm
• http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan212007/national048342007121.asp
• http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1908976,000500020008.htm.

During his speech Sai Baba made the following remark about Telangana "it is a sin to cut up the country or states into pieces (because) it is not good for the country or for the people”.

'What is not true': The statement by Ekantik that "after various sections of the Indian population have taken objection to his remarks about the futility of creating a separate Telangana state." is not true.

Only the activist of the The Telangan Rashtra Samiti (TRS) revolted against this and went on a rampage but there was also counter protest by shops and business establishments in puttaparthi to condemn the remarks of Telangana leaders against Sai Baba. There was also another view from the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee they termed it as scores of 'misinterpretations' attributed to the comments of Satya Sai Baba. "All that Baba wanted to emphasis was unity and human oneness. But reference to Telangana in his speech was unfortunately misread," http://www.ibnlive.com/news/sai-baba-lands-in-a-telangana-row/top/31880-3.html

Is Sai Baba political? Is he political just because politicians visits his ashram like the other 3000 people(average) who visits his ashram dialy. Is he political because politicians attend Sathya Sai Baba college graduation ceremonies or annual sports meet or other functions?

Its always a common practice in Indian schools / other colleges to invite chief guest for independence day or for graduation ceremonies or other functions. Many schools / colleges invites government officials to speak to their students during such occasions and present awards to students. So what's wrong if the President is invited to preside over the Sathya Sai college graduation ceremony or annual sports meet or any other ceremony and is requested to speak to the students or the people gathered there?

Sathya sai Baba's ashram is open to anybody and everybody. So who ever wants, can go and visit him but nobody is send an invitation to visit his ashram. Every day on an average 3000 visitors visit Baba's ashram. Even politicians visit his ashram. What's is the problem if the politicians wants to visit him like anybody else. Do you think that they must not be allowed or banned into the ashram because they are politicians?

What is not true about Ekantik's statement "Politicians who regularly visit him to seek his advice on political matters". Sathya Sai Baba generally keeps himself away from politics. In fact in karunanidhi(CM of Chennai) interview to Sun TV after Sai Baba's visit when anchors questioned him what did Sai Baba and Karunanidhi(atheist) talked about? He said, I did not talk about religion and Sai Baba did not talk about politics.

Wikisunn 13th February 2007

WIKISUNN, it hink that the information you gave canbe aadded to the article without adding a new page about sathaya sai babaa. Smith Jones 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisunn, this is not a discussion about whether politicians seek his advice on political matters. They do, so I'll thank you not to give me long-winded explanations about it. This discussion is about adding the information into the article. I think that point has already been answered. Ekantik ^talk 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, Sri Sathya Sai Baba criticised the formingo of Telangana on ethical&religious grounds, not on political grounds. Krystian 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let me make it clearer if it wasn't already clear before: This is not a talk-page to be used as a soapbox for advocating a particular point of view, but just a talk-page for discussing improvements and changes into the article. I personally do not care what SSB gets upto just so long as it is reliably sourced when information is included in the article. I personally do not care what SSB meant when he criticised the move to create a new Telangana state and Wikipedia does not care either; the fact is that he made a political statement and a lot of politicians have exploded in response to said statement. I might include this information into the article (as there are no objections), source it reliably etc, just as soon as I figure out the appropriate place to put it. Ekantik ^talk 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info, mainly following the layout of the Wikinews article (link template included within text). If you feel you can contribute by making the text more neutral/NPOV then please do so, or add more sources. I've also just nominated the article for ITN. Ekantik ^talk 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the Political Row as a separate Category for more clarity as its content is about the latest political uproar and is different from the rest of the categories. This has enough information to go as a separate category. Also I have added more information which I discussed earlier published from a number of Indian Newspapers.

Wikisunn 19th February 2007

I initially agreed with the idea of a separate section for political issues but I'm now in two minds about it; a separate section on SSB's political influence may be useful for the article and can be moved higher-up along with the welfare works, etc. However, this particular issue about the Telangana controversy is a controversy and is a sub-section of the Criticism section, and is valid for the same. I also noticed that the information you included was not written in an NPOV style and I will be rewriting this section when I get the time. One of your references (India eNews) is also a violation of WP:RS, it does not appear to be a news site per se, more of a blog site. The Indian Express reference is a better reference but focuses too much on Karunanidhi's attitude to religion, etc. Ekantik ^talk 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this information to the article may be misguided because a form of Wikipedia:Recentism. SSB is not notable for his opposition to Telengana except in the last months and this incident will likely be seen as trivial, unimportant, and peripheral to the notability of SSB. Andries 23:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I appreciate that. What are your thoughts on the creation of a separate section for SSB's political influences? Perhaps this can serve as a basis for that? Ekantik ^talk 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, give examples of what you want to do before adding it directly to the article. News that Sathya Sai Baba was given a huge felicitation in Chennai by a private organization, thousands of people attended it is true and it was published in all newspapers, and only during that event Baba made the Telangana statement. The Wikipedia:Recentism essay talks about the concerns about news which changes from time to time like “2004 U.S. election voting controversies “and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so adding such news will undermine its standards. But this news about felicitation for Sai Baba does not fall under that category. Both the felicitation and telangana comment by Baba happened during the same event. There is nothing wrong in mentioning the event when he made the comment while writing the controversy related to the comment. So writing only half of the information and not covering the other part of the event which was also published in all major newspapers is wrong and incorrect.

Wikisunn 20th February 2007

While we're on the subject, Wikisunn, please stop turning sub-sections into separate sections when they are unwarranted. The "Stances" sub-section is connected to sexual abuse and is not notable for a separate section. Ditto for sexual abuse, the issue is different to the 1993 murders. Please read WP:MOS and see how to properly format an article. Although I agree that this article is still messy and far from a MOS standard, that doesn't mean we willy-nilly create chaos by messing up sections and sub-sections. Ekantik ^talk 01:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at other Biographies of living persons in Wikipedia like Prem Rawat or Mahatma Gandhi or anybody else. Every biography has a Category called “Criticism” summarizing the views of Critics and does not have biased subcategories breaking NPOV. This SSB article should follow the same standards. Also the section “Criticism” is already under dispute regarding its neutrality. By adding biased Sub Category titles we are further complicating the problem. Writing Style in Biographies of living people says” Articles Should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP.

Lets also look at the SSB article contents to see if the contents justify such a subsection category. Following are the contents.

1)Alay Rahm Case: This was discussed in the Arb.com extensively. This will be rewritten after arb.com following Fred Bauder comment that “It cannot be included because it is almost impossible to determine if this particular person is being truthful.” Fred Bauder 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2)Time article about the death of 3 people: This article talks about guilt by association as pointed by Thatcher and does not justify a separate heading Sexual abuse allegation subsection category.

3)Koert van der Velde, a reporter for Dutch newspaper Trouw, claimed in a critical article that Sathya Sai Baba forbade people to look at the internet.[100]. This is again not a sexual abuse allegation.

4)The Guardian further expressed concerns over a contingent of 200 youths travelling to the Baba's ashram. Again this does not say a particular person was sexually abused it only said it expressed concerns. Expressing concerns is not same as an instance / case of Sexual abuse allegation.

ii) The same guardian says “Sathya Sai Baba has not been charged over old allegations of sexual abuse”. This statement further contradicts creation of a sub category title and does not justify the sub category title.

5)Even the Unesco Warning again talks about a deep concern and does not confirm any particular sexual abuse allegation.

When there is not a single case / instance of Sexual abuse allegation then how does it justify to create biased sub category section especially in the biography of a living person? Look at other biographies in wikipedia, their writing styles, and how carefully they select category heading to comply with NPOV. This article has to be written carefully following NPOV and adding a controversial biased Sub Section heading when not required only augments the problem instead of creating better solution to the article. Please don't add biased Sub categories when not required.

Wikisunn 20th February 2007

Wikisunn, I've told you before and I'll tell you again: You have demonstrated on repeated occasions that you do not understand the fundamentals of WP policies (example). You also continue to use this page as a soapbox for advocacy. I am not going to bother responding to your points (as they should be addressed separately, so go ahead and make a new section for that). This point about sub-categories being biased is your opinion, it is perfectly valid when a Critical section is describing different types of criticism. As you can see, Criticism of SSB is mainly under three categories: the 1993 murders, sexual abuse controversy,and now the political row (which could become a basis for a new section entirely). This is not a BLP issue, but an issue with WP:MOS.

The example you quoted about Prem Rawat completely undercuts your view. There is one sub-category for criticism and four sub-sub-categories to deal with four different types of criticism. Criticism of Mahatma Gandhi was mainly political so there is no need for sub-categories there.

And finally, the sub-categories have been there for a long time in this article and nobody has objected to them except you. Every editor who possesses a basic comprehension of WP:MOS can understand that different sub-categories are needed to deal with three different types of criticism. Your edits want to teat the sex abuse controversy as an accompaniment to the 1993 murders, and you want to put the 'Stances' section as an independent section, which makes the article incomprehensible! The other thing is that since you continue to display a non-comprehension of WP policies on this matter, it becomes very hard to accept that your edits are made in good faith especially when you continue to introduce stylistic errors into the article. Ekantik ^talk 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, there is no need to keep re-inserting the information about "receiving a big felicitation" for the water project. If you had reviewed the edit history, you'll see that I moved your text into the appropriate section about SSB's projects. I'd highly appreciate it if you could review the edit history to see what you are doing, what to speak of providing unreliable sources for your remarks. Ekantik ^talk 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I also mention that the way you made your edit broke NPOV? "In January 2007, Baba was given a big felicitation" is not neutral language is it? I mentioned earlier that I was going to NPOV-ise this as well as provide more reliable references. India eNews is not a reliable source. I'd highly appreciate it if you addressed the comments made to you on this talk-page instead of discussing other peripheral issues. Ekantik ^talk 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, Yes, it’s a problem of WP:MOS. You are adding wrong sub categories. Criticism should only summarise the view of critics that’s what the name implies. Why do you want to add “Stances of Devotees and Proponents “ under Criticism section? Are they views of Critics? The “Stances” should be a separate section as they are response to Criticism by Followers. Also you are unnecessarily trying to add a subcategory “Sexual abuse allegation” under the heading Criticism when there is not a single instance / proof of sexual abuse allegation in the contents. If you add NPOV sub category heading under Criticism such as “Criticism by Ex-Followers” rather than “Sexual abuse Allegation” I am ok with that. Your emphasis on adding this subcategory “Sexual abuse allegation” when there is not a single instance of sexual abuse allegation only shows your negative bias in editing Sathya Sai Baba article.

Regarding the Political Row: Why is that a grand function given to Sai Baba attended by Political parties is placed under “Organisation Section” rather than in the Political Row section? This should be under the political section as it involves the political parties and felicitation attended by Government heads. You said I am not being NPOV because I described the event as a big felicitation to Sai Baba. How do you describe a grand function in a huge public arena attended by several hundreds of people and also by four chief ministers of four different state arranged on a mega scale and covered in all Newspapers and telecasted in all channels?

Regarding the Wikipedia:Recentism. Telangana controversy is a perfect example of Recentism. There was a protest by Telangana activities following Baba’s comments then there were also a counter protest. Now everything has calmed down and nobody is reported any more disputes related to Baba’s comment. Inspite of this being an perfect example of Recentism you have added a detailed description about this in the article but will not accept if other editors add felicitations / recognition given to Sai Baba on a grand scale in a big public meeting attended by Government heads and published in all major newspapers.

These edits are further proofs of your open negative bias to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Wikisunn 21st February 2007

Wikisunn's, I think that criticism and rebuttals to criticisms belong together. We could rename the section to make this clear to the reader e.g "Criticisms and replies", but criticisms and rebuttals treat the same subjects and should hence not be seperated. Andries 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I agree with your suggestion that we can rename the section 'Criticism' to 'Criticism and Replies' or 'Criticism and Responses' and then the 'Stances' can be a subcategory renamed to "Responses to Criticism'. However I don't agree with the Political Row as its contents are the recent political developments related to SaiBaba and different from the rest of the article and hence must be a separate category and should include the grand felicitation attended by political party and also describe the Telangana dispute.

Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

Wikisunn, your comments are, broadly speaking, personal attacks (wherever you mention my "motivations" and suchlike) and are inappropriate for article talk-pages. If you have a problem with anything I do or say then I actively encourage you to discuss the matter on my talk-page so as to avoid cluttering up article-talkpages. So I'm just going to give a short reply to each of your points mainly because I've already provided full rationales:

• It does not matter whether there is "proof" of sexual abuse, that is why the section is called "allegations". Anybody would agree that allegations are what is being described. Furthermore, it has remained a sub-section for a long time before you got here; You are the only one making changes and other editors oppose your edits as they make the section confusing and unreadable. Hence, you do not have consensus for making a change that no one supports. The "Stances" section describes the response of devotees/proponents to the allegations of sexual abuse and should be aligned properly to aid readability. Splitting it into a separate section is bad copyediting.
• The "grand function" was chiefly to celebrate SSB's participation in the Chennai water project and thus should be placed in a section describing his welfare works. The 'Political row' section is under Criticism so why do you want to "criticise" SSB's contributions? Honestly, you are just not making any sense at all and I am surprised that I have to explain the obvious. The language you used was POV, it should be "neutralised"; you could have said: "The Baba was commended for another water project in Chennai" or something similar. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.
• Feel free to add information about SSB's welfare works, I don't have a problem as long as it is sourced reliably and is notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. As for recentism, if you take the time to read WP:RECENT, you'll see the section highlighted in bold: "..allegations of recentism should be considered a symptom of the editorial process and an argument for further improvement and refinement of thought through discussion of where the content may belong." It has already been discussed below that this section could be the basis for a new section to discuss SSB's political connections, but this has escaped your attention. Bear in mind that WP:RECENT is neither a policy nor a guideline so, AFAIK, we are not obliged to follow it.

I'm afraid that all this just shows your continuing misunderstanding of foundational WP policies that taint every argument you present, even though you have been told umpteen times to edify yourself about the concerned policies. I'm afraid that if you don't appear to show any understanding of WP policies in this matter, I am not obliged to respond to your points if I don't feel your actions will improve given the number of times I've already explained the issues patiently to you. I'd also highly appreciate if you refrained from making personal attacks in the future. Ekantik ^talk 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, We are not going to agree on this issue. I don't agree to your statement that there should be a sub category "Sexual abuse allegation" just because "it has remained a sub-section for a long time" although there is not a single instance of sexual abuse allegation in the contents. I think adding a biased subsection is against NPOV and as we must strictly adhere to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Biased_or_malicious_content.

Anyway as per Andries suggestion I am going to change the section heading Criticism to 'Criticism and Responses'. I am going to request for comment from all editors regarding this and political row issue. We can decide based on consensus from other editors.

Wikisunn 22nd February 2007

The organizations section is better suited in the article Sathya Sai Baba movement so I copied almost all of it there.(Though some sources used strike me as doubtful) We could leave a summary or short list of the organizations sections here. I will give an exampe of what I want at Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup later. Andries 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, Why is that the Sathya Sai Baba/Cleanup uses a very old version and does not reflect the current version of the Sathya Sai Baba article?

Wikisunn 13th February 2007

I agree with this as it is far too long. Thatcher enunciated a good view above about how this article should mainly be a "biographical article", so I think its fair to split organisational information into separate articles with brief summaries on this one. Ekantik ^talk 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some important information was missing e.g. SSB's claim to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. This must have been removed when somebody thought that the lead section was too long. There may be more. Please help to check and re-insert. Andries 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for the lead, but I think more detail on this could go into the History section. What I'm struglling with is the scorpion incident; "no one cares if you were bitten by a dog when you were five", but because this scorpion incident is referenced so much and marked a notable change in his career that I think it should be formatted properly. Of course, the Shirdi stuff will come after that. Ekantik ^talk 04:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be expanded a bit as advised in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot all about that, ha ha. Perhaps the previously-used five-paragraph lead could be used after being trimmed down to four paras or less as per WP:LEAD, assuming that this text is fine. Ekantik ^talk 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction

Whoever's been inserting that Howard Murphet stuff is actually making the section unreadable by bad grammar, punctuation and all the rest of it. Are there any objections to Murphet's stuff being used? If so then the section should be rewritten accordingly. I tried to cleanup some of the grammar but stuff about Kasturi's four-volume biography imade redundant if we don't find a way of expanding the sentence. It just mentions that he wrote a four-volume biography, so what? And then goes straight onto the virgin birth claim in another of Kasturi's books. By the way I corrected the Virgin Birth error, SSB is believed to have been born of immaculate conception, not virgin birth as his mother was not a virgin at the time of his birth. Ekantik ^talk 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink to immaculate conception seems to concentrate more on the Christian doctrine than on what an immaculate conception actually is, and is therefore troubling for this article. Please replace with more suitable wikilinks if necessary. Possible candidates are Incarnation (Christianity), Virgin Birth and Parthenogenesis. Ekantik ^talk 03:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be Virgin Birth. I believe that Mick Brown made a mistake in the Daily Telegragh in an otherwise well-researched article Of course, we should report what the sources say, but we can agree not to use a certain source for a certain claim if editors agree that the source is erroneous in that respect. Does somebody have Kasturi's book Easwaramma? I heard/listened to it years ago, because it was read aloud during bhajan service. Andries 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book and I can type it out somewhere if you wish, but to my recollection I don't think there's any specific place where Kasturi mentions virgin birth. I think the error creeps in because Kasturi spends some time in his introduction comparing SSB's birth to the births of Jesus and Ramakrishna among others (which appear to be virgin births in their own right). I think this is definitely a case of reportage conflicting with real-life observation; whereas it is reported to be a virgin birth, the real-life observation is that SSB had older siblings so his mother couldn't have been a virgin. But I'll be happy to help reach a consensus. Ekantik ^talk 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, I think you misunderstand the concept of a Virgin birth. A person born from a Virgin birth can have older brother and sisters. Andries 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was my point in the first place; the wikilink is not informative enough to explain what is being referred to. I personally disagree with the idea that a person born of a virgin birth can have older siblings (it contradicts the meaning of virgin) which is why SSB's birth is believed to be an immaculate conception rather than a "virgin" birth. But wikilinking is a different thing, since Parthenogenesis explains what is being said adequately and Virgin Birth focuses too much on the Christian religious doctrine. I suggest that the term be formulated thus: immaculate conception. As in, "In his book about the Baba's mother, Kasturi wrote that Sathya was conceived through immaculate conception." The term "immaculate conception" (or "virgin birth") will be written but the wikilink is to the parthenogenesis article. That seems like a reasonable way to go about things. Ekantik ^talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it is rather difficult. A closer reading of parthenogenesis explains that it is a naturally-occurring phenomenon among plants and some animial species but not mammals. It is a biology-oriented article so unsuitable for a wikilink. I have therefore made a wikilink to Virgin Birth because that's the best we have right now even If I personally disagree with the terminology. Oh well.. Ekantik ^talk 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the neutrality check tag on the article? I cannot find an explanation. I will remove the tag if this is not explained. Andries 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for removal. Ekantik ^talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence describes an incident that is unimportant and should hence be removed. We only have limited place here.

"According to Kasturi, in his 15th year, he was visited by the rani (queen) of Chincholi. Her late husband, the Raja, had been a very ardent devotee of Shirdi Baba."

Andries 00:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for removal. Ekantik ^talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for keeping. Krystian 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Nagel's article "Sai Baba as Shiva Shakti"

• Babb, Lawrence A. “Sathya Sai Baba’s Saintly Play”, in Saints and Virtues, John Stratton Hawley (ed.), Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1987:168-186. The quotation is from p. 173.

"Scholar Lawrence Babb thought it a striking feature that in the narrations about Sathya Sai Baba, his life emerges with

an almost complete elision of individual personhood. What looks at first like life-history turns out to be something quite different: a suppression of unique life-history, and a removal of the life in question from history. At virtually every turn individuating details are subordinated to one timeless mythic paradigm or another. His birth was not a particular birth but the birth of a deity-infant, as evidenced by the resounding of the tambùrã and the cobra under the bedding. His childhood was not a particular childhood but the childhood of a juvenile god, for which the ruling paradigm in India is the early life of Krishna. With the first of the two great disclosures, the image of the magical child is superseded by another – that of the archetypal holy man, as represented by Sai Baba of Shirdi. In the second disclosure this identity, in turn is encompassed within yet another, which is not only wider, but universal. Now he is revealed to be Shiva and Shakti, who together represent the Absolute."

If someone could get the article by Babb then we can include it. Andries 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sex abuse controversy is disjointed, with earlier events recorded as happening later, e.g.: the last paragraph is about Glen Meloy, which should be moved up as it occurred in 2000. I attempted to rewrite it before (diff) according to proper chronology and which became the subject of an edit war. If no one objects, I'll rewrite it again according to that diff as it gives a proper chronological perspective on events, what to speak of being well sourced. Ekantik ^talk 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me. There are several ways of structuring this article (or any article)

1. Strictly chronological

2. Per subject

3. Facts first and only then opinions and allegations

4. Per POV

The article now is a mixture of all four. I have always maintained that organizing the article per POV is incorrect, though some paras may be fine if orrganized per section POV, but not whole sections. Thaumaturgic and SSS108 changed the structure to organize it per POV without following concencus and in spite of my protests, though SSS108 later asserted that concencus was necessary for making changes. Andries 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ammended for grammar 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik wants to add a subcategory titled “Sexual abuse allegation” under Criticism and Replies section. Please give your comments.

Wikisunn 22st February 2007

When there is not a single instance of sexual abuse allegation in the contents, I don’t think it is necessary to add such a biased subcategory titled “Sexual abuse allegation”. The category heading and subheading should follow NPOV as this is a biography of a living person. Let’s look at the content to see if adding such a subsection is justified.

1)Alay Rahm Case: This was discussed in the Arb.com extensively. This will be rewritten after arb.com following Fred Bauder comment that “It cannot be included because it is almost impossible to determine if this particular person is being truthful.” Fred Bauder 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2) The Time article talks about the death of 3 people: This article talks about guilt by association as pointed by Thatcher. This is a criticism and does not justify a separate heading Sexual abuse allegation subsection category.

3)Koert van der Velde, a reporter for Dutch newspaper Trouw, claimed in a critical article that Sathya Sai Baba forbade people to look at the internet. This is again just a criticism.

4)The Guardian further expressed concerns over a contingent of 200 youths travelling to the Baba's ashram. Again this does not say a particular person was sexually abused it only said it expressed concerns. Expressing concerns is not same as an instance / case of Sexual abuse allegation. Again, this is a criticism.

ii) The same guardian says “Sathya Sai Baba has not been charged over old allegations of sexual abuse”. This statement further contradicts creation of a sub category title and does not justify the sub category title.

5)Even the Unesco Warning again talks about a deep concern and does not confirm any particular sexual abuse allegation.

In all these contents there is only criticism and there is not a single case / instance / valid proof of Sexual abuse allegation then how does it justify to create biased sub category section especially in the biography of a living person? The Criticism section has already been elected for dispute on neutrality. By adding controversial biased Sub Section heading when not required only augments the problems in this article instead of creating better solution to the article. Wikisunn 22st February 2007

I am strongly against adding such a subheading. Krystian 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know that you two are "strongly" against iou both also happen tot even though it has been like that for months (possibly years) and nobody ever objected to it. You both happen to be strong SSB followers but it might be a good idea to not let this get in the way of constructive editing instead of continuing to use this article as some sort of battleground. Now I don't let whatever biases I may have get in the way of proper copyediting.

Wikisunn, I wish you would get your facts straight: I do not want to "add" a sub-section entitled 'Sexual abuse allegations'; It has been that way since the main editors on this article (Andries and SSS108) were openly disagreeing on a variety of topics but never this one. Maybe it's because some editors are sensible enough to see the and keep the value of WP:MOS and WP:COPYEDIT, listing each particular controversy under an appropriately-titled sub-section. I have already pointed it out before, but Wikisunn's way of doing things not only introduces extremely bad stylistic errors into the article but he is the only editor who thinks it must be his way. Only now is he attempting to seek consensus, and all of his points are flawed and have already been disproved/refuted in above discussions on the matter.

Therefore I strongly oppose Wikisunn's motion and I would like to request him to stop cluttering up this talk-page by copy-pasting the arguments that he has made over and over again. I would also strongly encourage Wikisunn to assist in cleaning up the article (like everyone else is doing) and politely ask him to refrain from continuous bickering over tangential, trivial and non-consequential issues. Ekantik ^talk 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record (again repeating things I've said to Wikissun repeatedly) it is not the business of Wikipedia to judge whether SSB is guilty of sexual abuse. It is the business of Wikipedia to report that there have been sexual abuse allegations levelled against him, with proper references and sources. Thus, Wikisunn's continual arguments over there being "no proof" of sexual abuse are useless as far as this topic is concerned. Wikisunn is using this article and talk-page as a soapbox for advocacy. Ekantik ^talk 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly resent your comments and your incivility. Stop using words such as “bickering” and threatening to block me in my user page for questioning and editing your wrong WP:MOS. You are pushing your POV. Stop trying to block other users who differ from your views or modify your edits. You stated earlier that “you do not have consensus for making a change that no one supports”. Now when I ask for consensus you don’t accept it and you disrupt it. If you had let people express their comments then you will know who is for it and who is against adding this biased subsection title.You constantly change your statements to favor your arguments.You are the one using Wikipedia as a soap box for advocacy. Your recent edits are proof for it.

If you don’t want people to disagree with your views or edit your statements then don’t write in wikipedia. Why is that you always have problems with other editors disagreeing with you. So far I have complained about your behaviour, kkrystian has complained about your behaviour, You also had problems with sss108 and freelanceresearcher. You cannot stand anybody disagreeing with your views. You criticize your coeditors and accuses them.

Now you are threatening to block me for differing with your wrong edits and wrong WP:MOS style? Stop acting like admin. This time you have gone too far pushing your POV. Wikisunn 22st February 2007