Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 11

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Proposition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thatcher already gave his opinion why. SSS108 talk-email 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UNESCO 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bookstore 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  American vs. British English 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Aura Miracle 

message: 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)
replies: text: The refs are supported on these pages: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion on sub-categories of [[:Category:Sathya Sai Baba]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, that is an official publication. Andries 09:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Shiva-Shakti Statements 

message: 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)
replies: text: May be the template plus the infobox is too much. Andries 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing page numbers, years of publication 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  1971 Resurrection of Walter Cowan described in Kasturi's 1961 biography 

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

message: Alice Coltrane is another well known devotee of Sathya Sai Baba . SSS108 talk-email 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alice Coltrane 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reminders and [[Bibliography of Sathya Sai Baba]] 

message: Girija Prasad Koirala is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba: See Ref SSS108 talk-email 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: THIS PAGE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED!!!! Smith Jones 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Girija Prasad Koirala]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: The BBC documentary reported 30 million. Ekantik talk 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of adherents 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Re-added important information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Minor correction

message: 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)
replies: text: Vote for removal. Ekantik talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality check tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: Vote for removal. Ekantik talk 00:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Vote for keeping. Krystian 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Vote for keeping. Wikisunn 25th February 2007
This is ridiulous. The sentence is non-encyclopaedic and is going to be removed in a long-overdue massive cleanup and is not subject to a "vote" as such. Otherwise, please explain how this sentence is encyclopaedic and why it deserves to retain a place in the article.
This type of process is ruining the way this article is written. Ekantik talk 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Krystian and Wikisunn should at least try to explain why this incicent is important. Andries 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the following incident included 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting summary by Nagel of Babb 

message: I guess that all regular editors are aware that Steel now refutes his own older books on his homepage, but why is this a reaon to delete them? Andries 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any reason to delete them, they were/are good resources. I personally leafed through the compendium in 2000 when I saw it in a bookshop and I thought it was rather good. We can add them back in for that reason as it is a worthwhile source of information. Ekantik talk 14:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the books by Brian Steel deleted from the bibliography section? 

message: The criticism section currently seems quite limited, the allegations have so far only been limited to the cult-like appearance of his following. There is no mention of alleged money laundering or the sexual molestation complaints. At the very least criticisms about the money pouring in should be included (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm)
Molestation Allegation Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/saibaba/saibaba6.html
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/SaiBabaExposed.html
http://www.saibabaexpose.com/gabriel.htm
http://www.exbaba.com/
http://skepdic.com/saibaba.html
http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/Oily.htm
JayAlto (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Criticism Section Lacking''' 

message: Now that this article has been through two ArbCom decisions, I believe that it is now the time to say goodbye to the old attitudes of personal attacks, assumption of bad faith and so on. Now is the time to usher in the new era of loving, thoughtful and peaceful collaborations that will help to make this article one of Wikipedia's best. Editors need to work together (regardless of affiliations) and without needless edit-wars according to the ideals of Wikipedia that foster a positive environment for work on an encyclopaedic entry on Sathya Sai Baba, one of India's best-known gurus. So hopefully this goal can be achieved through the necessary eforts and striving for that achievement. Ekantik talk 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad it came to this. But we ought to be able to balance the differing viewpoints and arrive at an encyclopedic article now.--Dseer 06:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''A New Beginning''' 

message: Copied from ArbCom case talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably good material for the sathya sai Baba movement. The long list of scholarly sources cannot change the fact that no single reputable biographical source exists. Not even a newspaper article that presents a factual overview of his life that is not based on Kasturi's hagiographical writings. Andries (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andries (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Bowen lists some events from his life chronologically that I will copy soon. Andries (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: None of the accounts of his life from these tertiary books cite any evidential sources. They are all based on unverifiable sources which can easily be wiped out of Wikipedia. Please cite books, sources that base their accounts on evidence which can be traced and be proven as valid and not opinionated. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources that could be explored 

message: I went to the trouble of joining the Meta-Wiki to get the bookstore link blacklisted, it has been. Let's hope that this is the end of the continual spamming. Ekantik talk 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookstore link 

message: Abdul Kalam, a Sathya Sai Baba follower? Really? Can anybody cite a source where he admits this?
:Good point. It is said frequently that Kalam is SSB-follower. I have also heard that he used to teach in SSB's colleges in the 1970s, but it depends on reliable sources for citation. Ekantik talk 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't listen to this Brian; he is Brian Steel - an online public critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba!! Of course Kalam, Schulman, Haraldsson ets. are followers of SSB. Kkrystian 15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdul Kalam? 

message: :Well yes, but it is original research and personal opinion to make a statement about SSB's alleged sainthood. He is widely regarded as a saint and reported to be such in numerous reliable sources. I think a disputation of this status as relating to this article's categorisation is a bit much, this article ought to be categorised properly. If reliable sources report SSB as a Hindu saint, he is a Hindu saint. Ekantik talk 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, can Krishna be called a Hindu saint? Krystian 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends if you can find a reliable reference/source that refers to Krishna as a saint, although I wouldn't think so because AFAIK even neutral sources describe Krishna as God or an incarnation of some sort. Ekantik talk 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  saint 

message: Hi,
I saw the magazine Salon.com mentioned in the 'Criticism and replies' section, and just wanted to establish basically what it is. I got the info from the Wikipedia entry for Salon.com, and of course readers can just click on the link right before the comment in parentheses for more in-depth info. 
Ani 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salon.com 

message: Hi,
   I believe Michael Nobel is the great grand nephew of Alfred Nobel and not his son. 
Citation: http://www.vsi.net/bio_nobel.aspx
Gvinayak 16:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Nobel 

message: What happen to the criticism section? It evaporated? I do not mind of the criticism is incorporated throughout the article, but deleting all the material is no proper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it. Please incorporate in the main text and NPOV as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, Thank you for noticing that. I was just starting to do my research and wanted to bring this very subject up. So, I thank you for your efforts and fully agree with you here.  I have learned that UNESCO pulled its support and once I have the citations I will incorporate that into the article so it will have a more balanced point of view. Yes, I agree with your that it is not proper to delete all the criticism considering that one report states that the US travel advisory is specifically due to Sai Baba, although not stated on the travel advisory. PEACETalkAbout 01:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of UNESCO, here: [removing negative external link per ArbCom] are the true reasons why it withdrew. Kkrystian 07:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: These type of comments are not useful. I will add some pointers to your talk page so you can be informed about how this project works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section? 

message: In the whole article, there a instances where the the name Sai Baba is used instead of Sathya Sai baba. 
Personally, reading through it feels like reading about Sai Baba(Shirdi), which is misleading and does not 
do good this article. hence its my request to plzz edit the name to Sathya Sai baba and avoid confusion of 
readers.
(Asro 12:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Usage 

message: I have reverted a deletion which was not explained.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: The sexual allegations have no basis in truth.  I am not a Sai devotee (I'm not even Hindu) but enough research online shows that some spiteful people just have some resentment that they show by making up allegations.  Lawsuits have failed because of the lack of evidence on this subject.  Just because he has technically been criticized, it is misleading to quote the allegations as a possibility.  By putting it in the criticism section (even with the responses section), it says that the reader is allowed to make up their own mind.  The courts have made up their mind and decided the allegations had no basis in truth.  Why slander a guy with fake allegations?  My proof is coming from [negative external link removed per ArbCom] as well as other google searches.  I'm not completely familiar with all the WP:RULES but I feel like there are rules against putting information just because it's true - i.e. "According to the BBC reporter Tanya Datta, a lot of sexual abuse victims have undergone a genital oiling by Sathya Sai Baba that they believe is part of Hinduism."  Just because it's true that Tanya Datta said that, it doesn't mean the information should be up there.  It's misleading and seems to be put there intentionally to make people think it must be true because the BBC said it.  That would be like quoting Jayson Blair's NYT articles.
Therefore, I suggest we remove all references to it, both in criticism and response section.
Agree 75.100.89.19 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  You violate your own purpose by stating at the outset "...no basis in truth", which shows that you have a fundamental disconnect with our Wiki-purpose.  We report the sources, we combine and show the situation as reporters.  *Truth* is not relevant to what we do.  Perhaps you could start again and rephrase your suggestion in terms of source-reporting. Wjhonson (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to remove all sexual allegation references. 

message: Before I would like to begin major rewrites (as per my late assurances), what do editors think of the current 'philosopher' infobox? I realise this is a bit of an old issue but I think it is just as important as it was before. I think that the current 'philosopher' infobox is inappropriate because:
#SSB is not a philosopher
#SSB doesn't really have any notable ideas to speak of
#There is a long list of people he has supposedly influenced, which is already handled by the template at the bottom of the article which is also placed on all SSB-related articles.
#The 'philosopher' infobox is meant for individuals who actually made a contribution to the field of philosophy with their "original" ideas, such as Immanuel Kant, Jean-Paul Sartre, Réné Descartes, etc. SSB does not figure in this category because he has not made any significant contribution to philosophy by his own admission.
#I think the religious leader infobox is more appropriate for SSB with the correct Hinduism colour code that is related to Hinduism-oriented articles throughout Wikipedia.
I'll give this a day or so to see if anyone has any thoughts and then I'll go ahead and do it. - Ekantik talk 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative infobox may be the Hindu leader infobox, which is slightly more detail with reference to guru (none), philosophy (Advaita Vedanta?), etc. - Ekantik talk 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have decided to Be BOLD and go ahead with this proposed change. WP:BOLD advises that if pages can be improved then to do so immediately. There will be no significant loss of information since most of the fields are redundant in application to SSB (his having no notable ideas etc), and I have outlined some more reasons above why the current infobox is inappropriate. If anyone disagrees then maybe we can talk about it with a view to making this article more encycolopaedic, even if infoboxes serve no real purpose aside from making the article look pretty. - Ekantik talk 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can we verify assertions such as "is not a philosopher"? Or, conversely, are there sources where we can verify the opposite opinion? Thanks. Avb 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. I'm not immediately aware of any impartial biographical information on SSB which speaks specifically about his philosophy. As a religious leader he does discuss philosophy as a matter of spiritual discourse, but he has not been recognised to have made a significant contribution to the field of philosophy à la Descartes, Wittgenstein, Kant, etc. To be honest I'm not even sure his philosophy counts as straight "Advaita Vedanta" (as per infobox), as he does not subscribe to the orthodox/official tenets of that philosophy, but has his own version of it. Ekantik talk 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, the infobox should follow the article text, currently: a guru from southern India, religious leader, orator and philosopher often described as a godman and a miracle worker -- this supports the box proposed by Ekantik. Avb 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate infobox? 

message: emm.. just wanna say thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.178.222 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  m.. emm  f5 

message: The passage about the kirlian aura was deleted in accordance with previous discussions on this page about it's coming from highly unreliable sources. Also for the fact that the ArbCom deemed it as such here. Ekantik talk 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aura 

message: Regarding the links to SaiRadio and SaiCast: The first external link is to the Sai Organisation official site which links to those sites fairly prominently.. the external links to SaiRadio and SaiCast seem a bit redundant given that (and their relative lack of importance to the article) --99.247.120.178 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I suppose you're right. Those 2 websites were promotional and media-oriented anyway. The official organisation sites should suffice as a reference point, so I went ahead and deleted them. Ekantik talk 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Given the notability of the claims, I feel like the lead could be re-written to incorporate a mention of the allegations of abuse (with proper refernces), while also stating none have ever been proved (or tried) in court.  That seems reasonable and neutral to me given 'the amount of media coverage, and it could be a first step to cleaning things up and more evenly spreading the relevant "criticism" throughout the article instead of in it's own section. I don't know if this would be a lightning war for an edit war, so please comment. 99.247.120.178 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. I was going to do it myself eventually but you can go ahead if you wish. Sai Baba has come in for a fair bit of criticism and this ought to be reflected in the Lead para as it is throughout Wikipedia. Ekantik talk 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring the lead 

message: Why was this section missing from the article ? i have added this section, pls contribute more and add further, so that complete picture is presented, ranging from Avtar to tight mind control, sexual abuse cases have been represented fairly, so is the teachings section, but cult allegation was missing, could not go through the archive, can anyone provide any reference as why this important section was missing ? --Cult free world (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there hasn't been a section on cult allegations for as long as I've been involved with this article. However, I think it is fair to say that it should be included. I'm not very happy with the two references you've chosen though. The first is a TV review of the 'Secret Swami' programme and the second is basically a link to FactNet. Neither of these sources prove the "cult" allegation, and we would need to find sources that do. Are there any sources that specifically reference SSB's organisation as a cult? Or SSB himself as a cult leader? Ekantik talk 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if those two references violates WP:RS if you feel so, we may consider other links, however factnet is a notable site and has verified substances on their site, not against any perticuler  group, but general information, review of a newspaper comes under purview of reliable source, media is considered reliable on wikipedia, we need to build upon it, would welcome you to add more to that section. --Cult free world (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ya ya you need beter sources and you need to makes rue that you emphacize that these "cult" claims are only allegations and not acutal fact. a lot of people try to smwear genuine religious leaders by tarring them win this wthose cults and its of vital importance that we do not do that same thing because it will cause a lot of problems, with regards to legal isues in the future since wikipedia tries to maintain as wide as stand ace as possible when doing atciles on real people. sathya sai baba is an important and well-deservedly respected member of the spiritual comminity and everything that could be possible negative said about him should be sourced heavily to avoid any hint of impiety. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Would appreciate if anyone can provide example of better source, which can be used in this article. One more point i noticed, Advaita Vedanta, and incarnation are contradiction to each other, Advaita (non-dual) explains the concept of unity of soul, and as such, each human, is an incarnation, understanding varies in degree, but is present, this is what is essence of Advaita, incarnations do not go hand in hand, and as such this is a huge contradiction!! how have we attempted to balance this in this article ? it appears as if, it simply states what is said by the group, we may need to bring out a balanced picture, by adjusting the claim that philosophy is Advaita Vedanta and Sai Baba is incarnation, of course we need much better sources for that, but just wondered as why this information was not present till now ? --Cult free world (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Allegation 

message: Good luck to him, cause he will be the biggest fraud to be found in the next 20 years. Period. The End. GG --212.76.72.252 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you think more of a fraud than jesus christ?? Sai Baba never uses the money for his benefit. He has built schools, provided shelter, and given support to innumerable people in need. jesus on the other hand went around saying "he" was the son of god etc. hahaha. what a tool.. and the idiots, even today, fall for it hook line and sinker.
What an idiot. What really gets me is that there is a living prophet, and people treat him like this. I guess the same people here who are showing tremendous hate, are the same people who approved of putting Jesus on the cross. But it doesn't surprise, part of speaking God's work and doing Miracles is the hate, criticisms and doubts from the non-beleivers. May Baba enlighten you, the way he has enlighten us. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud.. 

message: [http://www.radiosai.org/pages/thought.asp 
Man is not aware of the grand goal of his pilgrimage. He is straying into wrong roads which lead him only to disaster. He places his faith in objects outside himself and strives to derive joy from and through them. He does not know that all the joys spring forth from inside him; he only invests the outer objects with his own joy drawn from inside him. He envelopes the outer objects with his inner joy and then, experiences it as though it is from that outer object.]
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.236 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 

message: The following sentence is untrue and unsourced and can only be sourced to partisan Sathya Sai Baba devotee literature where it is quite prominent. In other words it should be moved to Sathya Sai Baba movement and described there as a belief of devotees of Sathya Sai Baba. It should not be here.
:"It is believed by the devotees of Shirdi Baba that he would return back as a child in eight years after his Samadhi."
Andries (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed that statement from the article. Five days is enough for someone to put a source citation or fix it. Pippa17 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake or propaganda 

message: I believe there is a mistake on the article. There is a picture of a man with an orange robe and an afro...is this right?
:yes. Andries (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Unless I've missed something (and it IS a very long article) there is nothing in the text of the article that confirms, or even asserts, that Baba is properly categorized as LGBT. I'm going to guess that these categories were added on account of the allegations of sexual abuse of boys or young men; but even if those allegations were proven, that in itself would not translate to confirmation of his sexual orientation. So both of those categories will need to be removed if solid information is not added to the article in short order. Cgingold (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't the molestation of underage boys by a grown man still considered a homosexual act?  It's also considered a criminal act in most places.  Of course, these are allegations, but there are a number of boys who have openly claimed to have been sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba over the years, and there are numerous citations for this in the article.  Yes, a person has to be proven guilty in a court of law for them to be considered a criminal, and I don't know of any public statements where Sathya Sai Baba has confessed to these accusations or whether he has openly claimed to be a homosexual or not, but the numerous claims against him are widespread and well-known.  Yes, they are allegations, but proving guilt of a religious leader is not always easy to do (if anyone remembers the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church), and in India some people actually view Sathya Sai Baba as a God.  And since this guy is considered to be such a "holy man" in some parts of India, it seems that legal cases against him have never panned out.  But for information on him, just read the Criticism section of the article for more details.  For example, it says, "The Daily Telegraph stated that Sathya Sai Baba rubbed oil on the genitals of a young male devotee. The testimonies of sexual abuse of young men were shown in TV documentaries, including "Seduced by Sai Baba" by Denmark's national television, and documentary film "Secret Swami" by BBC."  And, "According to an article in Salon.com in the year 2001, a great part of (the book) "The Findings" (by David and Faye Bailey) contains testimonies of sexual harassment and sexual abuse." Geneisner (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Does he self-identify as gay? No. WP:BLP is strict here, and your statement above is precisely why. There are allegations, rumours, and such, but no definitive proof. The categories will be removed ASAP.Pectoretalk 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual abuse is about "power over" and the gender of the abused is rarely significant.  BLP does indeed rein here - if Sathya Sai Baba doesn't self-identify (and/or there aren't reliable third-party sources that identify him) as gay, then he should not be in a category labeling him as such. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Where is the source for all of this? And please don't give me some sassy page 3 newspaper, a bergmansteinsky book or a capitalist magazine. Unless you have sources from governmental sex offender lists or court convictions, Wikipedia does not allow the defamation of character based upon speculation, propaganda or page 3 news. Also remember, Sathya Sai Baba is an active prophet for millions of people around the world, be careful not to offend his followers. Focus your energy on Garry Glitter. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Categories? 

message: Can someone replace the picture with one that is of a better resolution? If this is not done by a few days, I shall attend to it myself. Thanks --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixelated Picture 

message: Arnold Shulman's literature offers no traceable sources as to his claims against the Validity of Sai Baba's early childhood and upbringing. Not only is it speculative, it is also antonymous with other article's regarding religious figures, where speculations, particularly invalid ones such as that of Shulmans, are left in the Criticism section or otherwise ignored. We do not have double standards in Wikipedia and this article needs to be coherent with articles on other such figures. I suggest to rewrite the "essay style" written account for his childhood and also other areas, with the criticisms and allegations either removed or left at the Criticism section. Readers will become confused as to the real story. There are many more critics far more notable than Shulman offering different views on the story of Jesus, however, the Jesus article carries the official story, leaving critical views a different section. The Sai Baba article needs to cohere with such articles. Arnold Shulman's account and other critic versions are highly debatable, as they offer no concrete evidence, and what is often seen as absurd in India, is that a man with no first hand understanding of Indian culture, attempts to come across as a credible alternative. In the academic environment, Arnold Shulman is also seen as invalid, simply because he does not specialize in religious studies, Indian culture or history, but makes films, of which many are considered highly offensive to some and provoking. If any criticisms are valid for an encyclopedia, it should be of writers and authors who specialize in the respective subject, both in their academic background and portfolio of work. Anyone in dispute, please read Wikipedia guidelines before attempting to disagree. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Schulman is the only written source that tries to verify SSB's official story, so deleting Schulman's version is one of the worst possible suggestions for this article that I can think of. Andries (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to remove Arnold Shulman's account 

message: "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." 
You can not use especially in the context of always. This is not a valid gramatic sentence and even though you source the owner, it has no place in an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwood (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the author of that sentence but I don't agree with your gramatic analysis, but if it makes you happy, just remove "always" and so the sentence says "Mr Bhagani also stated that when devotees are selected by Baba for a private interview, there is someone else present in the room, and especially when women and children meet him." But on what basis do you say "has no place in an encyclopedia"? This is more relevant than many of the other cumbersome negatives from western critics. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to criticism 

message: The amount of slack based upon tertiary sources, hate based publishings based on no verfiable sources is tremendous in this article. All of the sexual allegations, most of the criticisms are based upon an authors opinion of which many of them specialize in fields far from India, religion or Sathy Sai Baba, in chain making it only an unprofessional opinion and not a fact. This an encyclopedia, not an essay nor a hate page. This article needs to stay coherent with other articles of such religious figures. All criticisms of which many are offensive, must be either in a separate section, or we should open a new article for the criticisms themselves, similar to how criticisms of Jesus are separated from the official account of his followers. Due to the volume and dirtiness of the placement of the criticisms, I suggest opening a new article, titled "Critics of Sathya Sai Baba", where the Criticism's can be professionally verified, accounted for, validated and written based on their theorists seperate from the traditional, official story of Sai Baba based upon his believers and his direct actions, books and speeches. Many people consider Sathya Sai Baba a prophet, and the return of the incarnation of God, and this article is crudely offensive when compared to articles of other religious figures. This is a sensitive issue, and people should watch out what they write, carefully, and ensure no speculative, conspiracy theories such as the molestation theories are added unless there is evidence which can verified. Always put your self in other people's shoes, how would you feel if people made false allegations against Jesus, Muhammed, Abraham, Babylonian Jews or Herzl Zion? Please also understand, only sex offenders list's, court rulings or such verifiable sources are permitted when accusing a person of sexual indecency. Without those, it just remains a theory/conspiracy theory. The other theories such as the Indian government is infiltrated by his followers, are nothing but the same as saying the Jews rule America, it is only a conspiracy theory, that does not belong on the official story. Infact, a seperate section titled "Conspiracy Theories" in the new article for criticisms should detail the absurd authors who out of paranoia write such things. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.219.58 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Conspiracy Theories, Please cite valid sources & Proposal for a seperate article "Critics of Sathya Sai Baba 

message: I firmly KNOW that Sathya Sai Baba is, in fact, an Avatar, just like Krishna.
For those who do not have the experience needed to afirm this, I make a question: what IF it is true that He IS a manifestation of God as human? IF this is true, THEN this article will never be "encyclopedic" as it should, because in this case, to be a good article, it should mention, clearly and with all simplicity: Sathya Sai Baba is a Purna Avatar - God in human form - which came to restablish Dharma on Earth.
As per hinduism the only Avataar in KaliYuga is Kalki!
And he comes to bring war and fire, not peace and love :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.102.165 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible Resolution 

message: and insert *.
Until now I have NOT understood why this link disturbs anyone.
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.15.156 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, correct the page 

message: Friends, why waste your time with such controversial figures? There are so many other true masters of the yogic-vedic tradition whose lives are or were immaculate! It's all here, in the web. Search a bit and you'll find them. In this short life, it is a tremendous waste of your precious time to endulge in such discussions. I'm sure some of you might have come across the latin legal term "fumus bonis juris", meaning, the smoke of good law. That's equal to the old saying "there's fire where there's smoke". So, you see, all these alegations and acusations about these fellows are a big obstacle in the lives of those searching for a spiritual path. With all due respect, but an avatar would never have such controverses and acusations upon him. Like stated before, anyone willing to do a research on the lives of all true avatars, masters, yogis and saints, will come to same conclusion, their lives were an example, pure, imaculate, devoted to God, to austerities, meditation, fasting, and so forth...no child sex abuse, drugs, murder, abortion, prossecution, prision, etc. My advice is, don't waste your time trying to prove or disprove these alegations, let the lawyers do it. If you're seeking God, you should set these matters aside, instead of geting caught in the gross mud of delusion set forth in the lives of all these fake masters and gurus. Only God knows the heaviness of the karma of these charlatains. To mess with the people's inocence, devotion, hope, spirituality and religion is the worst sin there could be. I'm sure millions of lives under fake masters await for these fellows. The followers themeselves are already under the spell of this karma, but the ones resposible for misguiding are the ones to suffer the most. Awake and free yourselves now from this karma. Ask God for true spiritual guidance and He will answer you, for if your desire to know and be with Him is sincere, a true master is surely to appear. Or perhaps God Himself will manifest to this devotee.  At least that is what all the ancient vedic scriptures affirm. Say Baba is not an Avatar, nor a yogi, saint or guru. He is a tipical example of guruism, a man absorbed in his own matters, seeking his own glory and fame, along with his paranoia to have sex with young boys. I wonder why doesn't he perform real miracles like walking on water or raising the dead, like Christ and many other true masters of India had made? "Materializing" ashes and jewels is not a big deal, any 3rd class magician can do that. Why doesn't he heal the millions of people suffering from deadly deseases in India? That would be a miracle. That only an avatar can do. So, you see, such figures have been around India for many centuries, and Hindus know that well. Acctually, India has had many more charlatains then real masters. A fake guru can be found in every corner of India, but a true Guru is to be born only once or twice in every century, and these are very, very hard to find. They are usualy anonimous, not concerned with the salvation of others, neither with politics or philantropy. These guys will always tell you the truth, that God is within you, and only you can find Him. He would never ask you to follow him, or to give him money, or "special massages in private rooms", if you know what I mean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.112.21 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasting time 

message: Nobody seriously tries to improve it or even remove the blatant inaccuracy from the summary. It used to be better. Sathya Sai Baba is not generally regarded as godman by his followers, as I had already argued months ago. There are no sources (with only one tiny exception) for that. The listed sources Lochtefeld & Edwards do not write that he is regarded as a Godman 'by his followers. This is term used by others, with a tiny exception. 
I cannot improve it because I am considered to have a conflict of interest, but even if that may be true (which I continue to deny), a mildly biased but accurate and well-maintained article is better than a neglected article with blatant inaccuracies. 
I suggest people stop donating to the Wikimedia foundations until at least the blatant inaccuracies have been removed from this article. Thanks Andries (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article suffers from serious neglect 

message: :1) Finding of Facts :
::Sathya Sai Baba is weakly sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
:2)  Rulings on NPOV and sources: 
::Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides that articles should utilize the best and most reputable source[s]. NPOV cannot be synthesized by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source. Instead, NPOV requires that high-quality, neutral sources be used for the bulk of the article, with more polarized sources utilized only when necessary to illustrate the range of opinion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources provides that scholarly sources are to be preferred, and offers advice on evaluation of non-scholarly sources. Wikipedia holds that particular attention to sourcing is vital for controversial subjects, and that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
::Wikipedia's prohibition on original research provides that editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia articles document what reliable sources state about their subjects. Especially in controversial cases, citations should be complete enough that readers may evaluate them, and specific enough that the supporting material can be easily retrieved and identified.
::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
:3) Proposals: .
::The following are the sources which the arbitration commitee recommends the editors to use as reference to this article. These sources were proposed by Jossi to the arbitration commitee.
::* Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 1991 
::* The Sathya Sai Baba community in Bradford : its origin and development, religious beliefs and practices, Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Leeds, 1988.
::*  McKean, Lise,  Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement  and 
::* White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, 1972, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Aug., 1972), pp. 863-878
::* Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 116-124
::* Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press (1987),  
::* Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism,  Academic Press, 2003, Vol 33; part 1, pages 73-94
::* Swallow D. A., Ashes and Powers: Myth, Rite and Miracle in an Indian God-Man's Cult, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1982), pp. 123-158
::* Sangha, Dave  & Kumar Sahoo, Ajaya, Social work, spirituality, and diasporic communities : The case of the sathya sai baba movement, Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 2005, vol. 24, no4, pp. 75-88, Haworth Press
::* Kent, Alexandra, Creating Divine Unity: Chinese Recruitment in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 15, Number 1 / January 1, 2000
::* Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, 2004, Taylor and Francis
::* Spurr, M. J., Visiting cards revisited: An account of some recent first-hand observations of the "miracles" of Sathya Sai Baba, and an Investigation into the role of the miraculous in his theology, Journal of Religion and Psychical Research, 2003, Vol 26; Oart 4, pp.198-216
::* Lee, Raymond, Sai Baba, salvation and syncretism, Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 125-140 (1982) SAGE Publications
::*  Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang, 1 February 1984. available online in English
::* Sullivan, Michael, C., In Search of a Perfect World: A Historical Perspective on the Phenomenon of Millennialism And Dissatisfaction With the World As It Is, Authorhouse (2005), 
::* Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), 
::* Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba) (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Stallings, Stephanie,  Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review, June 22, 2000 (added 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second arbitration findings, rulings and proposals