Sathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2004 Peer review Reviewed May 14, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 3, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Religion: New religious movements C‑class Mid‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). India C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Ethics / Religion / Eastern / Contemporary C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Metaphysics Ethics Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Contemporary philosophy Alternative medicine C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Skepticism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

The sentence above is taken from the article. It is not appropriately marked as a quote (if that's what it is), nor is the source indicated. Therefore, a reader familiar with the punctuation conventions must come to the conclusion that the author of that particular passage is referring to him/herself. (A reader who is not familiar with punctuation will simply be confused as to WHO exactly is the "we" referred to.)

Please, correct the passage.

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village.[citation needed]"^[1]

)

I object to the use of discourses by SSB and books by devotees for the biography. They are unreliable sources. Three scholars have written that it is impossible to write a biography because reliable data is not available i.e. Babb, Norris W. Palmer and Poggendorf-Kakar because virtually all sources are derived from the unreliable hagiographic Kasturi. And why was the attempt of verification by Schulman removed of the cobra incident? This is one of the very few sources that is not derived from the unreliable Kasturi. This article has seriously detoriated and has not been handled at all according to the arbcom decisions of reliable sourcing. Andries (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the statement by Babb removed about the lack of reliability of Kasturi's writing removed? Please note that Babb was a recommended source in the latest arbcom case regarding this article. So please restore it quickly. Andries (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought For the Day 5th December 2009

There is in everyone a spark of Truth; no one can live without that spark. There is in everyone a flame of Love; life becomes a dark void without it. That spark, that flame is God, for He is the source of all Truth and all Love. Man seeks the Truth; he seeks to know the reality because his very nature is derived from God who is Truth. He seeks Love, to give it and share it, for his nature is God and God is Love.

- BABA

-- 88.75.203.177 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Biography section, I have restored the following reference to this neglected RS work on the early years of Sathya Sai Baba which someone has unhelpfully deleted at some time in the past few months. I do not propose to waste further time on this, but I do hope open-minded Wikipedians will prevent further similar acts of "vandalism by stealth" (by one of the usual suspects) in this controversial article.

"A different chronology of Sathyanarayana's schooling is offered, with school register photostats, in Love is My Form. Volume 1, edited by R. Padmanaban, Sathya Sai Baba's former photographer, and published in October 2000 by Sai Towers Publishing of Bangalore and Puttaparthi (ISBN 81-86822-77-1).The photostats of school register pages, with dates, are shown on pages 40-41, 68-69 and 131-132, and a 2-page summary of data about the 4 schools attended is given on pages 128-129. Previous references to this neglected RS have been surreptitiously removed from this article in the past few months. This RS should be treated with more respect." Ombudswiki (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this important reference was removed again 2 days later, by J929, with this pretext: "removed hidden comment as article is too long, best to take it to the talk page". J929 obviously does not read the Talk page.

Is no one concerned about this repeated smothering of references to this basic bibliographical source on such irrelevant arguments? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see why those notices were posted. I would like to go in boldly and reduce this article by about 60%, leaving a much more neutral and Wikipedic remainder. Does anyone seriously object? Rumiton (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it. Smartse (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reduction is good but it should be done carefully and not by just one person, of course anyone can do anything they want but I think the most productive way would be a collaboration. I can help.Sbs108 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's wait a few days to see if there's anyone else. Rumiton (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome more NPOV which means less reliance on devotee sources, Kasturi, or sources derived from thoses sources that have been assessed as hagiographic and unreliable by three different scholars (Babb, Palmer and Poggendorf-Kakar). I also think that neutrality means that the article should better reflect the very critical attitude of many mainstream sources, like the BBC and the Times. (Neutrality in Wikipedia means following what reputable sources have stated.) Andries (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for the label "too long" for a Wikipedia encyclopedic entry of this type? And how does User Rumiton justify a massive 60% cut? I seriously object to the idea of such a drastic truncation and will keep an eye on developments over the coming weeks or months for later contributions if they become necessary. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not follow a very critical attitude because these allegations have not been proven, backed up or followed up on by these sources nor has there been any cases against Sai Baba. Just because these allegations were mentioned in reputable sources can't negate the entire life of Sai Baba and the good he is done. Sai Baba is not known for these allegations, these are not the origin of his fame. Besides there has been absolutely no follow up by these sources accept the one time articles (Documentary) that presented these "allegations" nor has there been any new allegations nor any cases. There is already enough criticism in the article given the BLP standards. I don't agree with any pro or anti statements. Tell the life like it is without distortion and sensationalism. A critical view is well into the minority no matter how you want to slice it. In other words its basically a footnote in the article. To present more of a "critical" view than is already there is a complete distortion of reality.Sbs108 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andries, nice to meet you again. I agree that the sources that prevail here seem to be devotional. But as we have seen elsewhere, insisting on a "balance" of pro and anti statements creates a schizoid article that no one is happy with, least of all the reader who goes to Wikipedia for information. I think it is possible for the encyclopedia to speak with a balanced voice that acknowledges all points of view but promotes none of them. Are you happy to cooperate in this endeavour? Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe a reduction is a good start. However, as you can see from the archived discussions, any widespread removal of information without discussion first causes a good bit of controversy and talk page arguments. Perhaps singling out the worst sections, and discussing those here would be a better step than up and removing 60% of a very, very long article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article is long but what is to be cleaned up is important... alot of information can be found in the Sathya Sai Baba movement page...

i think its best to keep most of the biography intact as that is what seems most pertanent to Sathya Sai Baba as a person. anything that anyone does, (ie practises) or or claims around him should be placed or elaborated somewhere else... in that the water projects were started by him as well as the hospitals, i think those should stay as those events/projects were started by him directly...

to "clean up" the article should be more than a slash and burn approach...

J929 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would suggest getting rid of the political row section as its been over 2 years and nothing has happened since...

J929 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree because it is unrelated to his notability. Andries (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to person/article subject's life seems most in line in keeping with the article's subject... ie. the scorpian sting has no importance is Sai Baba notability but but is major occurance (although not from Sai Baba's own point of view) of an event in Sathya Sai Baba's life, enough to be noted in most books about Sai Baba...
biography and 'Institutions, organizations and projects' should be kept as they are. (no one can argue about events in Sathya Sai Baba's life ie hip surgery or parentage/family lineage) ...the rest can be summarised.
'claims of materialisation' can be removed and replaced with a brief reference to the (relatively) common knowledge of Sai Baba's materialization of vibhutti, statues etc etc ....

Criticism and controversy should be kept to a brief yet well referenced minimum along with responses to Criticism and controversy, as Sai Baba has made little (if any) responses to the mdedia...

the last paragraoh in "Ashrams and mandirs" can be omitted, the rest should stay as the ashrams were built around Sai Baba...

although a point seems to arise... what will keep other editors (now or in the future) from re -inserting information that will be deleted now? alot of the information is relevant and valid. the only factor is that wikipedia says the article is too long...
some one may feel that it is important to discuss that there is no scientific proof that Sai Baba does materialise objects or that no one has proved vibhutti (ash) comes out from devotees photos and will want to elaborate on it...

J929 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree to 60% article reduction proposal from Rumiton. But I do agree that this article can benefit from some clean up. As pointed out by Onopearls and others this clean up has to be done carefully section by section.

• The Political Row Section:

I agree with others that this section adds nothing notable to this article. This section could be removed. This section may be a good starting point to clean up the article.

• Beliefs and Practices of Devotees Section and Ashrams and Mandirs Section:

These two sections could be merged with the 'Sathya Sai Movement' article - as it will fit in well there. In this main Sathya Sai Baba article we can just have the section headings with the link to the Sathya Sai Movement article. This is to prevent new editors from re-adding these two sections.

• The Summary Section, Criticism and Controversy Section and Response to Criticism Section:

These 3 sections are very well written and well referenced. There is no need to touch these sections and we can leave them as it is.

• Biography Section:

This will be a challenging section if we plan to clean up. It may be better to leave it as it is.

• Claims of Materialisation and Institution Sections:

These sections also will need specific clean up discussion.

Even if we all agree on cleaning up few sections in this article mentioned above such as Political Row, Beliefs and Practices of Devotees Section and Ashrams and Mandirs Section that will definitely help in reducing the size of this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards of the endorsement by the reliable sources noticeboard about use of official sources for this article. Where is this thread? Were they informed that three scholars (Babb, Palmer, and Poggendorf-Kakar) deemed the official biographer, Kasturi, hagiographic and unreliable? If not then, the thread had to be re-opened. Poggendorf-Kakar wrote that the Sathya Sai Org. had deliberately and consciously inflated the number of adherents for its propagandistic value. Andries (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there might be some reason for optimism, at least quite a number of editors agree that changes need to be made. I have no personal interest in this subject and don't intend to spend the next five years arguing minutiae with editors who hold strong opinions about it. As I said above, a balance needs to be set, and this is hard to achieve when editors try to block anything that doesn't support their view or clamor for the insertion of information that does. I have worked on other religiously oriented pages that were heavily disputed, with, I think, pretty good results, at least from the point of long-term stability (see Jesus Army). Then I got banned for 12 months from the Prem Rawat page, but the article I contributed to there has also proved stable. If editors give me the OK, I will start a bit at a time. The intention will be to create an article "that might not be what anybody would have wanted, but which all can live with." Want to try? Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it might be a good idea to propose what changes you feel are pertanent to make. there may be more problems with editors trying to "clean up" or re-do any of the changes afterwards.

i removed the section "political row" as a few editors feel its not too important of a section.
hopefully a good start...

J929 (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

post deletion-- the article went from 90000 bytes to 84000, considering that was one section, it may feasible to bring the article size down considerably with the proposals by radiantenergy. i wouldnt mind removing some info as well. ie walk for values has its own page now so it can be refered to and redirected.
although i think anything directly correlated to Sai Baba ie. hospitals, water projects should be kept in as it was Sai Baba who proposed these ideas and are direct reference to Sathya Sai Baba's character.

J929 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some good progress, but the main thing is that only reputable sources are acceptable to Wikipedia, especially in a Living Biography. Many of the sources given here might at best be described as primary. Primary sources are considered OK if they are "not unduly self-promoting." Quoting your mother as saying you were conceived immaculately would clearly seem to be outside of this restriction, and a lot of other statements in the article are likewise unacceptable. On the other hand, having a separate Criticism section is only going to attract negative comment and POV. It has generally been found better to weave criticism into the main text body in a neutral way. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the initial clean up should still focus on deciding what sections to keep and what sections to merge with the 'Sathya Sai Movement' This way we can first cut down the size of the article.
• This article has been developed and has taken a shape over the years. The clean up task will be a challenge and needs to be done carefully in phases and specific section wise. Clean up does n't really mean cutting down 60% of the article.
• After initial clean up then we can probably discuss and decide on more tasks such as whether to merge 'Criticism section' into the main article etc after input from everyone.
• The usage of the primary sources in this article was taken for discussion to the reliable source notice board forum. In that discussion other wikipedians agreed that just like other religious wikipedia articles this article can use the Official Sathya Sai Websites as its Primary source. The primary source information related to this Organaisation, religious beliefs and other practices may not be available from third party newspapers or publications etc. Hence it was decided that the Official Sathya Sai Website can be used. However, when cleaning up sections which uses primary sources we can make sure its used properly with out any kind of promotion.
• Its very important that those who want to work in this article should familiarise themselves with the earlier mediation discussions about sources and other earlier discussions etc. Here's the link from BostonMA discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation. This link has several related discussions about the sources used in this article.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is some concern on my part with the statement, "Then I got banned for 12 months from the Prem Rawat page"... it doesnt really seem to build any cofidence in the propsal. why were you banned?

the statement "Quoting your mother as saying you were conceived immaculately" doesnt clearly reflect what was written. from the article it says, "Let’s start with our Beloved Sri Sathya Sai Baba whose conception was shrouded in mystery until a pundit well versed in the Holy Puranas felt a sudden urge to ask a question. “Swami! Was your Incarnation a Pravesa (Entrance) or a Prasava (Encience)?” To answer his question, Swami turned to Mother Easwaramma, the chosen Mother, and said to her, “Tell Rama Sarma what happened that day near the well after your mother-in-law had warned you.”

The Mother said, “I had dreamt of Sathya Narayana Deva and she cautioned me that I should not be frightened if something happened to me through the Will of God. That morning when I was at the well drawing water, a big ball of blue light came rolling towards me and I fainted and fell. I felt it glided into me”. Swami then turned to Rama Sarma with a smile and said, “There you have the answer, I was not begotten. It was Pravesa, not Prasava”."
Sai Baba is not quoting his mother. She spoke of it herself.

familiarity with the topic may be a good idea, not a quota.

i'd like to make the following changes myself...
-"Beliefs and practices of devotees" moved to sathya sai baba movement page.
-"Ashrams and mandirs" last paragraph removed, and banner/redirection to Prashanti Nilayam page added.
-"Institutions, organizations and projects" remove Walk for Values.

i'm familiar enough with the topics and references to transfer the info.
are there any additions, suggestions, concerns or objections to these proposed changes?

J929 (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big concerns. I was banned (in my own words) for losing my temper with someone who dredged the available sources for negative information and tried to apply almost impossible standards for sources of positive information. There are good reasons why Wikipedia demands civility above almost all other virtues, and my opponent was more civil than I was, so he only got reprimanded. I submitted that information in the interests of full disclosure. Getting back to the section you quote, this is really about the most over-blown and unencyclopedic piece of prose I have read anywhere on Wikipedia. It is clearly using Wikipedia to create the impression that the subject of this article is of super-human origin. It is "unduly self-serving" writ large, and shifting it somewhere else in Wikipedia is not the way to deal with it. Getting a primary source accepted where none other is available is one thing, but using it insert stuff like this into the article is quite another. You are splitting hairs by effectively saying, "He didn't say it; his mother did. He just agreed with her." Rumiton (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your argument at all, Rumiton. J929 quotes correctly from the archives. This is what Sathya Sai Baba is alleged to have said and his Organisation, and many other writers, have repeated this extraordinary claim of an immaculate conception. Many devotees probably believe this to be true. It is part of their faith. Surely, this reported statement and the rest of what Sathya Sai Baba has said in his (translated - but neglected) Discourses is relevant to his biography. Or do you propose to delete all statements made by him and promoted by his Organisation? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have ample secondary sources. The thing to do is to see which of these statements by Sai Baba are presented in secondary sources like Babb, and how they are presented there. It is the presentation in such secondary sources that we should summarise. Wikipedians making their own selections from Sai Baba primary sources and presenting statements made in these sources at face value is not the way to go; it is original research. We are supposed to summarise existing research. --JN466 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Jayen said. Please try to follow this argument; it can save a lot of distress for a lot of people for a long time. If you allow primary sources for such controversial information you are looking at years of angry debate between some editors who find the wording disrespectful and others who think it is not scornful enough. Scholarly sources put such claims in a cultural context and look into any mitigating or contradictory material. They give us a mature, balanced and well-informed view of the subject. Where strong points of view are held, this may not make either side particularly happy, but it is better than endless conflict. It also delivers an article which isn't going to get stubbed by admins and saves a lot of Wiki-bloodshed. (smileyface) Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(In answer to Jayen466 and Rumiton) It seems that you are willing to ignore or reject a perfectly good source of information, easily available and verifiable online. There are about 37 volumes of Discourses made by Sathya Sai Baba himself since the 1950s and published online (in translation) by his Organisation. What is wrong with quoting from these directly in relation to aspects of his life and teachings and leaving readers to draw their own conclusions? Your view of research seems unnecessarily restricted. Quoting verifiable statements (made by the subject of the "biography") in this way is not research; it is sharing one's reading (and offering exact sources). By the way, it is possible that secondary sources may not reveal enough of this prime material which so many devotees have read and absorbed. For instance, in my personal experience, many scholars have paid insufficient attention to the content and themes of the Discourses. Babb's 1980s writings (mentioned by you and often advocated by Andries) are one notable exception. As are those of Beyerstein, but he has been declared taboo on this site. Ombudswiki (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

• Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

• Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.

The ArbCom has twice found this article to have serious problems with its sourcing. An uninvolved editor noticed current problems and asked me to address the issue. The article apparently makes extensive use of movement websites for its sourcing, including:

• http://www.sssbpt.info
• http://www.saibaba.ws
• http://www.saibabaofindia.com
• http://www.vahini.org
• http://www.sathyasai.org
• http://www.radiosai.org

Wikipedia should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. While self-published sites may be used, they should not be the main sources. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. In addition, this article includes exceptional claims and those require exceptional sources. See WP:REDFLAG. Further, many of the links to websites are mere bare links, with no information about page titles, authors, accessdates, etc. Citation style was one of the ArbCom's related issues. I have not made a full review of the article or its sources, but I've seen enough to make me concerned.

Is there a reason why this article makes so much use of the movement websites? If not, that situation should be remedied. If facts or interpretations are not available in independent sources, are they necessary to include? In not, they should be removed. I urge involved editors to review the ArbCom remedies, the content and sourcing policies to make sure this article is in full compliance.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Will that the liberal use of movement websites in this article appears to be quite inappropriate. Please remember that it would be just as inappropriate to source the article to the websites and self-published writings of Sai Baba's critics, which is a similar problem which this article has suffered from in the past. The article should reflect the views and facts described in reputable secondary sources, among which scholarly sources are usually the most reliable. Movement websites are primary sources and should be used sparingly, e.g. to provide additional support for specific statements.
• I invite editors to review WP:NRMMOS, the Manual of Style for articles on new religious movements, especially the section WP:NRMMOS#Sourcing NRM articles. (I recently wrote that MOS. Input welcome.) --JN466 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely concur with Will and JN regarding the sourcing for this article. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 and I have placed a banner which every editor of the article will see:

Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline demands that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary-source material for themselves.
Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources, such as the websites of the Sai Baba movement or its critics.

Considering the history of this article and until the problem subsides, it would be inappropriate to add or restore primary sources to the article without prior discussion on this talk page or in mediation. Let's all make sure that future editing moves the article towards better compliance with Wikipedia's policies and best practices.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a novel proposal, but where would your major information come from? (And would this proposal then be applied to the rewriting of many other similar faith-based topics on Wikipedia?) Would it also leave the way open for the inclusion of material of a work like Love is My Form, which, although written by devotees and of a hagiographical nature, contributes valuable material on the early life of Sathya Sai Baba (interviews with early devotees, photos, etc.)? (See Section 9 of this discussion, above, and in other Archived sections.)

Incidentally, in your list above, two sites are NOT official sites, but DEVOTEE sites (www.saibaba.ws and www.saibabaofindia.com)and should not have been cited at all. Ombudswiki (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two ArbCom cases that found problems with the sourcing of this article. The two devotee sites appear to be among the most frequently cited, so that's a problem which should be addressed immediately. Primary sources that are reliable can be used within the limits set out by existing policies, but because of the ArbCom cases the aim should be to get the best possible sourcing. The article should not be based upon primary sources, but those may be used to provide illustrative quotes and details that enrich the material based mainly on secondary sources. I am not intending to get involved with the details at this time. If the sourcing and citation problems are made worse instead of better then administrative actions may have to be taken at some level, up to and including stubbing the article, which makes editors start over from scratch, or topic bans for editors. Let's avoid those outcomes and work to improve the article instead.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "novel proposal." The above suggestion seems to be a piece of mild advice for the remedying of a poor situation. Wikipedia reports what reputable sources say about a subject. If there are not enough references from these sources, then perhaps the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. This can be the case where a well-known subject in a part of the non-English speaking world is not sufficiently well-known in the English world for inclusion. It is up to editors to find neutral and reliable sources (in English) to form the basis of this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Also regarding the work you mention, the material in it would only be "valuable" if it supported and enriched information supplied by reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for where major information would come from, the answer is simple: from scholars, who are usually the most reliable sources, and secondly from high-quality, mainstream news sources. Sathya Sai Baba has been written about in hundreds of books published by reputable publishers. Begin with those by the top academic publishers -- university presses, leading academic publishers like Routledge, Springer or Greenwood, and try to identify the standard scholarly works on Sathya Sai Baba that other academics reference and cite. This listing is a good place to start; here is a University Press publication covering his life story. You can certainly cite that. If there are pages missing in the google books display, go to amazon.com which has a fully searchable preview of the book, allowing you (provided you are an existing amazon customer) to view several dozen pages for free. Take screenshots of relevant pages with Alt-Prt Scr if you need to refer to the material again. If a book turns out to be an important source for the article, think about buying it. --JN466 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars (Babb, Palmer and Poggendof-Kakar) have explicitly written that no reliable biographical information is available. Although I personally think that this is somewhat exaggerated, because a few sources are independent from the unreliable official biographer Kasturi, I have to admit that there is also lot of truth in it. The sources recommended by the arbcom are much better suited for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]