Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This page has been cited as a source by several media organizations. The citations are in:

"Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?", Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen, August 4, 2004. (details)
"Debate: Sai Baba, a godsend?", CNN-IBN, November 24, 2006. (details)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography (Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

More information about this article...

	This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
	The following comments have been left for this page: There is no question that in terms of the amount of information and number of references that this article is at the very least a B-class article. The unfortunate downside is that, given the regular revisions to the article which seem to be taking place, that it might encounter difficulties on that basis. Personally, if and when the edit wars ever end, I will be more than happy to review it and very likely propose it for good-article status. Until the edit wars cease, though, I regret to say that there probably isn't much that can be done to promote it, as the content might change substantially between the time the article is nominated and the time it is reviewed. Badbilltucker 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I have reservations about this being a B-class article. It has a lot of detail but also a lot of POV-pushing and it paints a picture that seems to me to be just plain inaccurate in the real world. And while there are many references they're almost entirely of works admiring SSB, mentioning little or none of the large amount of critical material available. The following seems like a very good bibliography of SSB-related material: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/sbresearchbib1.htm Maybe some of the works mentioned in it can be used to improve the article. 67.117.130.181 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Amazing, now 67.117.130.181 is arguing for the inclusion of original research by Steel, a source that deemed to be non-reputable in mediation with BostonMA. 67.117.130.181, SSB is a very popular personality. The controversial material about him is many years old and there simply isn't any new controversial material to update the article with. Also, please refrain from posting these critical links on pages associated with Sathya Sai Baba. There is an ArbCom ruling that has prohibited this. Please read it for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 ^talk-email 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) I'm not proposing to incorporate the bibliography into the article. I'm saying it has citations for various other publications that look like they should be usable in the article and are likely to be worth tracking down. I don't see it as a critical link. It is a bibliography and has citations to all kinds of material both pro and anti. Also, it is well sourced: every entry in it has a citation, which is the point of a bibliography. I will ask Thatcher131 for clarification about the arb ruling since I think you may have both misinterpreted it (at least I hope you have). 67.117.130.181 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) requested here. 67.117.130.181 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (edit)

WikiProject Religion (Rated B-Class)

Religion Portal

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.

This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

WikiProject India (Rated B-Class)

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

To-do list for Sathya Sai Baba:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Add some more info from Erlendur Haraldsson's book, e.g. M. Krishna (partially done) Add some more info from the book "Love is my form" (the book cost USD 99.00 and it may be difficult to order) Write about the Prashanti Council in the section organizations

[edit] Criticism Section Lacking

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)

[edit] A New Beginning

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)

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)

[edit] Impossible Resolution

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!

[edit] Infobox vs. template

I think the infobox should be removed and we should only keep the template? What do you think about it? Krystian 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In view of benefiting the article layout, I do not think that the template offers any significant benefit other than offering a long list of people who are influenced by or opposed to SSB and a few connected articles, so I would vote to remove it from the article. The infobox contains salient information that ought to be kept as "boom" information about SSB.

However, it would be a shame to waste the work that went into the template. So I strongly suggest that the template be converted into a footer-template which can be added to the bottom of the page and all other connected pages. I think this would be a much better way of going about things, and I think this is how it is done on Wikipedia as a whole so it would be good to maintain consistency across the Wikipedian board. Ekantik ^talk 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather like {{Hindu Deities and Texts}} for example, but needs to be appropriate modified for SSB obviously. Ekantik ^talk 04:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems better to me. --Dseer 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

~~It may need to be coloured orange to be consistent with Hindu-oriented articles.~~ Not necessarily orange, as appropriate templates have their own class program. In the meantime take a look at User:Ekantik/Template_Sandbox (bottom) to see how I'm modifying an appropriate template that is simultaneously relevant to SSB and yet maintaining consistency across Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way SSB is a religious leader, not a philosopher, so we may have to think about replacing that infobox with a "Hindu slant" as suggested on that page. Perhaps some co-ordination with members of WP:HINDU would be required. I'll get on it right away. Ekantik ^talk 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done! Check it out: {{Sathya Sai Baba}} Ekantik ^talk 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current infobox, it is an easy reference. Often times one only seeks a quick reference and doesn't want to read a full article. PEACETalkAbout 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Point of order, in the new infobox, one can't tell the current devotees, from the opponents/apostates?!? An oversight perhaps? PEACETalkAbout 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is nothing wrong with the infobox except that it may need to be converted into the official "religious leaders" box, but that's another matter.

Regarding the placement of the followers and opponents together, that is intentional as the heading ("Followers and opponents") is general. It is too much of a hassle to create separate categories for everything inside a template especially when there aren't enough Wikipedia articles to merit it. I may as well create a new section called "Locations" just to put in the two Prashanthi Nilayam and Puttaparthi articles, there's no point in that as it fits well in the "Other" section. It's also good to maintain consistency across Wikipedia, I'm not aware of any other template that has separate categories for opponents and critics of any particular thing. I may be wrong of course so please feel free to point one out of it exists. Ekantik ^talk 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future when there are enough articles to merit separate categories then we can include them of course. But for now it seems fine to go with it as it stands, just to provide an easy reference guide of associated articles for interested readers. Ekantik ^talk 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I'll start including the new template at the bottom of connected articles and remove the obsolete one soon. Ekantik ^talk 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some sources that could be explored

Copied from ArbCom case talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New Religious Movements in Western Europe: An Annotated Bibliography, Elisabeth Arweck, Peter B. Clarke; Greenwood Press, 1997
Hinduism in Modern Indonesia: Between Local, National, and Global Interests, Martin Ramstedt; RoutledgeCurzon, 2003
Hindu Selves in a Modern World: Guru Faith in the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission, Maya Warrier; RoutledgeCurzon, 2005
Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Peter L. Berger, Samuel P. Huntington; Oxford University Press, 2003
Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions, Journal article by Vasudha Narayanan; Daedalus, Vol. 130, 2001
Anomalies of Consciousness: Indian Perspectives and Research, Journal article by K. Ramakrishna Rao; The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, 1994
Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy, James R. Lewis; Prometheus Books, 2001
Media and the Transformation of Religion in South Asia, Lawrence A. Babb, Susan S. Wadley; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
South Asian Religions in the Americas: An Annotated Bibliography of Immigrant Religious Traditions, John Y. Fenton; Greenwood Press, 1995
Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 1991 ISBN 0813379695
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 ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
Steel, Brian, 3 Annotated Bibliographies on Sathya Sai Baba (Academic, Critical, Apologetic), on http//bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ [These extensive Bibliographies deal with 8 of the items on this list and many others not consulted or acknowledged by contributors to this article.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirosp (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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), ISBN 0520061632
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), ISBN 978-1420841619
Hansen, George P. The Trickster and the Paranormal, Xlibris Corporation (2001), ISBN 1401000827
Bowker, John, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 1997; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba)
Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review, June 22, 2000

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)

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

– Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160

Andries (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bookstore link

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)

[edit] Abdul Kalam?

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)

Neither Professor Haraldsson nor Arnold Schulman (the latter possibly deceased) are (or were) followers of SSB. Read their books. Devotees often make claims like this. Brian 19 June 2007

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)

Yes, I am the messenger but please pay attention to the message. And check this by doing the necessary reading. You will find that in their books on SSB, neither Schulman nor Professor Haraldsson claim devoteeship. In the separate case of President Kalam, since he is a very high profile Indian Muslim, it is doubtful that he has made a committed statement of being the devotee of a Hindu guru who claims to be God. As to the strong accusation of defamer, in the absence of any shred of evidence, it should surely be instantly dismissed by less emotional readers.

In connection with such subjective Wikipedia postings as the one referred to, it appears obvious that, on topics which are controversial, if writers were obliged to sign statements with their real names, such Wikipedia entries would be much improved and a lot of time would be saved by not having to refute or revert empty or provocative charges or other dubious statements made by people sheltering comfortably behind the anonymity of a pseudonym. Brian Steel, 3 August 2007

Is Former president Kalam Follower of SSB?? This is really a doubt as no references have been provided to justify it.Also i would like to point that the names viz President Kalam, Michael Nobel mentioned in the article has ppl present for the Function. Thís need not make them followers of SSB. Hence, the tone of that subsection aslo needs to be modified is its quite misleading. Or correct refrences must be provided. (Asro 11:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually I don't think he really believes. He does appear in many Sai gatherings and did fall at his feet. But in terms of actual praying to him outside, I don't think he does. He's doing it more to appease the Indian masses that believe in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayAlto (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] saint

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)

By the way, can Krishna be called a Hindu saint? Krystian 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am telling you people, this man is the hindu Benny Hinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.65.17 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] questions

Gravely concerning questions about the guru being involved in pedophilia raised by a family of followers from Little Rock. Arkansas were aired in a BBC documentary a couple of years ago. Any comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.101.244.9 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

The longstanding farce of the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba article continues to damage Wikipedia's increasingly precarious reputation on controversial topics, especially in the face of the recent inauguration of Citizendium. Brian Steel, please get a reality check on yourself. If you do not believe something fine, dont do so but stop making such nefarious claims about somebody who is revered by millions. You did not build a hospital which treats millions free of cost, you did not build places of education which educates many young people, you did not provide drinking water to millions, he did. I presume that you would have gotten the message by now. So please utilise your energies elsewhere wherein you could be more useful to mankind. - Rags Can someone responsible - if any such Wikipedial entities are overseeing these comedic entries - please check why, under the new editorial management (the poacher becomes the gamekeeper!), my 2 hagiographical books on Sathya Sai Baba - while I was devotee - are cited not once but TWICE in the References and my 5 years of serious and unchallenged critical writings as an ex-devotee are dismissed as "research"? Brian Steel 22 April 2007.

Just because you believe in him doesn't mean that history should be whitewashed. Allegations of phedophillia have been made. This isn't just one or two cases, we're talking countless cases made from both foreigners and locals (although anyone who's ever lived in India would know that the police aren't exactly the first people to call in these type of situations). I digress, I think that the current article is sorely trying to disguise the criticisms - it's far too small and it's proceeded with a long-winded reactions section which is completely unnecessary. We could add a prefix paragraph called "Reactions to Reactions" and debate this out on the wiki page (which is what is currently happening). Most of the claims about his powers are also without citations or sources - aptly so because the only sources you could use would be either videos or testomonials of those who were there (again which leads to 'faith based citations' which are neither scholarly nor credible).JayAlto (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Thousands of cases been made". Very funny, very funny. NOT ONE CASE has been filed against Sathya Sai Baba. Kkrystian (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jay. But I do think that the whole article needs work, not just the criticism section. However, I do agree and I'm going to go ahead and make the 'responses' a sub-section. This is what should have happened ages ago, but opposing editors were insisting on it being a separate section and nothing could be done because this article was under an ArbCom at the time. But now it is OK and I will make it a sub-section. Now that it is the Xmas break I have some more time on my hands so perhaps I will have some time to cleanup this article as I'v been promising.

I especially welcome your comment about miracles being unsourced, we need to find sourced citations and remove the unreliable references. Ekantik ^talk 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com

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)

[edit] Michael Nobel

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)

That is one little step closer to the truth. Moreover, Dr Nobel is not a philanthropic "patron" of SSB but a high-ranking member of the management team of WorldSpace: "Michael Nobel has served as a director of WorldSpace and its predecessors since 2001." (http://investor.worldspace.com) Brian 3 August 2007

[edit] Criticism section?

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)

I have restored it. Please incorporate in the main text and NPOV as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Talking of UNESCO, here: [removing negative external link per ArbCom] are the true reasons why it withdrew. Kkrystian 07:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[Stupid comment removed] by: Kkrystian 08:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Name Usage

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))

- I found some instances of this as well, but I wasn't sure if it was overkill to change all instances of "Sai Baba" into "Sathya Sai Baba" given that the article is about this particular baba. Is it clear from context?

[edit] "Now we have Sathya Geetha in the place of Sai Geetha"

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.

[edit] Deletion?

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

[edit] Suggestion to remove all sexual allegation references.

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)

I agree Kkrystian (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Inappropriate links

Continuing to re-add inappropriate external links (without properly explaining why they should be included in the first place) is a possible violation of WP:EL. Links that are non-English, picture sites that don't offer anything useful to the article, and personal websites are frowned upon by Wikipedia policy. Also, saisathyasai.com is a heavily critical and partisan site that is explicitly mentioned in the ArbCom resolution as inappropriate, and was discussed among all editors and agreed not to be included. Why is this being re-included?

I have brought this up on Kkrystian's talk-page as well. We could be dealing with a possible ArbCom violation here, aside from the "small" issue of edit-warring: 1, 2. Since these types of links are explicitly mentioned as violations of WP:EL, I have decided to remove them again while bringing this up on the talk-page for further discussion. Then we can decide where to go. - Ekantik ^talk 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kkrystian has reverted yet again, but decided to keep the link to saisathyasai.com. As mentioned previously, this website is highly critical and partisan and contains original research (thus violation of WP:EL and WP:OR). This issue was the subject of two ArbCom proceedings, and it was ultimately agreed among all main editors that this link was not to be included. Why is this being re-added in violation of ArbCom decisions?

Kkrystian is also refusing to discuss the matter as brought up on his talk-page. Ekantik ^talk 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the external link to saisathyasai.com because, apart from violating the ArbCom decision, it is also a heavily partisan and critical site that contains much original research, and is thus a violation of WP:EL. Ekantik ^talk 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

THis website is perfectly OK. Please quote a particular part of the ArbCom rulings that it violates before removing it. Kkrystian (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to see more substantial arguments. Thanks. Avb 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Note that I have followed three related ArbCom cases (whose outcomes I've just reread) and know this is not straightforward. To me the main question is whether or not the site qualifies as a WP:SPS and whether or not it itself quotes reliable sources on any contentious issues. In addition, the existence, aims, etc. of the site might warrant mention in the article depending on coverage about the site in reliable sources and assessment per WP:WEIGHT. It would, for example, be interesting to know if Sathya Sai Baba has an opinion on the site. Insofar as the site publishes biographical material, its inclusion is also governed by WP:BLP. Avb 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Avb. Perhaps it may be a good idea to skim through some of the talk-page archives to see previous discussions on this issue. I don't know how many more substantial arguments I can bring: This site has been a cause of problems for this article for as long as I can remember. The most important thing is that it offers next to nothing in the way of "defending" SSB but a significant part of it is libellous and defamatory towards other people. It does not quote reliable sources and itself is a construction of original research. it has also not been reported in third-party sources. It is a personal website of an individual (who actually was an editor here before he got banned indefinitely) that represents a one-man campaign to defend SSB from accusations of impropriety.

Also, as Kkrystian admits below, it is a "pro" site = partisanship. It violates WP:EL and adds nothing to the article, which is long overdue for a major revamp. - Ekantik ^talk 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in some finer points I might have missed. I've had this article on my watchlist for quite some time so know the broader lines of its history as well as the details of the latest (hopefully last) ArbCom case connected with it. FWIW, I tried to give some general pointers here, because the discussion on te admissibility of the link, in addition to interpreting ArbCom rulings, seemed to center more on disputes between editors based on real-life issues than on the source and policy based approach we have to prevent such animosity. I hope that you and Kkrystian will be able to agree on the correct course to follow. As you've commented below, that includes leaving out guesses regarding other editors' thoughts/feelings/reasons/motivation/etc. As to WP:EL, a partisan site can be used if we make clear to the reader how partisan it is (provided it meets the other WP requirements). Avb 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I thought I've seen you somewhere around in the past but I wasn't sure. Have we discussed before? Anyhow, I haven't really got a problem with other editors and am more interested in constructing a good article. It is unfortunate that other editors seem interested in attacking me, which I have duly reported. I have been away for some months due to real-life pressures but hopefully I will be here regularly to make good on my promises to improve the article.

As for the link, I did not know that partisan sites were allowed under certain cirucmstances. I only fear that other editors will step in and demand to link to partisan sites that expound the opposite view (that SSB is guilty as charged) which will lead to all sorts of problems again. As I said, I'm not interested much in these tit-for-tat issues because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I genuinely think that this problem can be avoided by not including such links at all given that they have caused so much disruption in the past. That includes any link that expounds a particular agenda from any side. I think the main issue is to rewrite the article to make it much neater and clearer to read, as well as making sure that statements are well-sourced. For example, you can take a look at what I've done with Puttaparthi, which was screaming with fancruft and has been brought down to a more acceptable encyclopaedic level.

Anyway I'm rambling on. I think the veracity of the site can be gleaned by perusing it. It contains next-to-nothing by way of "defending" SSB despite its claims to do so, and has much in the way of defamatory remarks against other living people, some of whom are editors here on Wikipedia. I don't think counter-attacks qualify as "defence", but aside from my statements that it violates several WP policies, I;m still not convinced that it contributes anything of merit to the article. May I ask what you think? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite remember if we've interacted before; I think I responded to a request about a source in a language I'm fluent in. Regarding partisan sites: they still need to conform to our policies. What I think: I would be very surprised if sufficient sources are available to make the site satisfy our various policies. But editor opinion is not the way to convince someone who believes the exact opposite. It's better to use policy-based arguments. E.g. ask for additional sources. The site could be interesting to our readers if relevance to the subject's notability is shown. Avb 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way I just wanted to add for clarity that my supposed feelings about the site are not a factor in my assertions as to its unreliability and non-inclusion. If the site and its contents were reliable then I would have absolutely no problem regarding its inclusion in the article. Ekantik ^talk 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The link does not in any way violate WP:BLP (it is a pro site). Ekantik hasn't pointed out the true reason for his removal but the true reason is known to me. It is because of this sectioin <URL removed per WP:BLP by Avb> of the website that exposes his identity & deception. There is no known opinion of Sathya Sai Baba on the site. Kkrystian (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate personal attacks, Kkrsytian. Comment on content, not on contributors. Ekantik ^talk 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP, the problem is not (or not primarily) that the site makes assertions about Sathya Sai Baba; it does, however, make many assertions about other living people. It is such assertions WP:BLP does not allow if they are not also found in reliable secondary sources. So, in addition to your opinion that the site can be linked, you need to show that the site has used such sources, certainly for the pages only one click away from the linked page. Has it? Avb 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't. A quick look at some of the talk-page archives will inform readers as to the nature of the site, and why this was such a problem that eventually led to two ArbCom cases. I can't help thinking that continued inclusion of this site is nothing but provocation and promotion of an agenda, especially as all editors agreed to keep it out at the time of the last ArbCom. This issue is certainly complicated, as any admin who has stepped in this issue will tell you. Ekantik ^talk 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It remains possible (though unlikely; I've taken a good look at the site) that editors will provide sufficient additional sources to include the site one way or another. There is no reason to talk about agendas, obvious as they may seem; all that's required is good sources as indicated above, without which inclusion of the site anywhere on Wikipedia would violate the NPOV, V, NOR and BLP policies. Yes, I've seen others remark on how complicated these issues are but hope they can be unraveled. Avb 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, Avb, there are no good sources used on the site. The site is itself a massive piece of original research. I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence, could you please clarify? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research is no longer OR as soon as acceptable sources where the assertions can be verified and to whom they can be attributed are provided by WP editors. As such, "there are no sources" is not convincing. What is convincing is the silence when the editor who wants to include the link is asked for such sources. Avb 20:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with that. Ekantik ^talk 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This website has lots; of sources. Virtually every statement that is atributed to somebody, or quote is sourced (usually with a link)! You can have a look at the website to see. It is written in a fairly objective way and only uses well-sourced and rational arguments. Kkrystian 15:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this statement exposes your breathtaking ignorance of WP policies on reliable sources, Kkrystian. It appears that after having been told to edify yourself about this policy and other policies, you have not done so and continue to ignore the exhortations of other editors to do so. For me this discussion is over and the link is inadmissible, especially as you cannot explain the reliability of its sources as well as third-party references. Fini. Ekantik ^talk 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kkrystian, you may want to provide acceptable sources here that support linking to the site. As to having a look, I already have, finding many assertions that are insufficiently sourced per Wikipedia's standards. Example: I saw assertions about other WP editors sourced to Wikipedia, Wikipedia Review and Wikitruth. Since none of these qualify as reliable sources on third parties, I checked the sources provided by Wikitruth on a WP editor I have worked with on occasion and found that they did not support the assertions at all. If this is the type of sourcing you are referring to, it will never wash here on Wikipedia. Please provide V RS sources. Without them, this self-published site will remain unusable on Wikipedia. Avb 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence Ekantik is objecting to. Ekantik, please refactor your statements insofar aimed at the editor. Let's keep this on topic please. Avb 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is appropriate here but for what its worth, I've been briefly reviewing the history of this article since my last major participation on Wikipedia. I was looking for a specific entry of defamation but I noticed some other weird things along the way. It seems that Kkrystian re-added this site (after all heavily-contributing editors agreed to keep it out after the 2nd ArbCom) on 30th April 2007. It was then removed by Administrator JzG here on 6 May 07 with the edit summary: "Per arbcom ruling. This site contains poorly sourced and incorrect personal allegations about living individuals." The site was re-added again by Kkrystian on 20th June 2007, and again removed by Spirosp on 3rd August 2007 with this edit summary: "Deleted: a reference to a website which does not conform to Wikipedia rules on NPOV or reputability. It is a partisan site." I couldn't find an entry where the link was re-added yet again, but this pattern of re-adding a site that has been highly objected to has been continuing right up to the present discussion. In fairness Kkrystian has made some good edits such as reverting genuine vandalism and so on, but I also spotted some extremely suspicious edits such as the one here, here, and here. Also on a related site here. I'm reluctant to launch into any accusations of partisanship and WP:COI because I don't want the hassle of a 3rd ArbCom etc. but I'd strongly suggest that a watch be kept on this article for all suspicious edits by any editor, even those appearing to do genuine work on this article. Even myself, as I am certainly not above suspicion? Even so, I'm extremely worried about this pattern of Kkrystian's re-adding a contentious site repeatedly without much justification, even into other BLP articles with the possible intention to defame or to publicise defamation carried out by someone else. We have to guard against the partisanship that has made this article suffer much in the past. I am also sad to note that Kkrystian has also removed important information that was reliably-sourced because it didn't fit his idea of what this article should look like. I will have to look deeper into this at some point in the future and restore any unnecessarily deleted info. Ekantik ^talk 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate infobox?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] m.. emm f5

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

[edit] Aura

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)

[edit] Sketchy References

A lot of the "available online" references point to some geocities page. Forgetting that that page might be copyright violations of the original source, can that be conisdered a trustworthy source? --99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the huge disputes that have taken place over his article, and because some or all of the articles are currently available online at activist websites, it was agreed among most of the regular editors to house the references at a neutral website. Hence, the use of the geocities website. As far as I recall, linking to activist websites became a huge problem for pro-SSB editors despite the fact that they were the only places where one could find the refs. The geocities website appears to have resolved this problem. Ekantik ^talk 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I found an agreement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Use_of_Websites#Reference_Links_to_Sites_With_Agendas where two editors in a dispute agreed to this based on a more reasonable (IMO) suggestion from the mediator. Is this consensus to point to the references this way? It seems definately sketchy to me, not to mention open to abuse (if your paranoid).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this issue although it seems that the above method seems to represent current consensus. My only worry is as I said earlier that most of the articles are no longer available at their original host-sites and the only alternative is to activist websites. This is a worry because linking to activist websites again may cause more disruptions and disputes that are avoidable, and also that because this article has been through 2 ArbComs, higher standards for referencing are needed for this article that most Wikipedia articles. This is related to WP:REDFLAG.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the geocities site is open to abuse, could you please clarify? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

About the geocities site being open to abuse, I meant since the conent was (presumbly) just copied and pasted from the original source it could be modifed and/or deleted by the owner of that geocities site. I admit this is probably not a large worry. I think the bigger problems are that we are NOT linking to original references themselves, which could be a copyright problem, and also makes the article seem less trustworthy. When I first read the article and followed the reference, it seemed very strange. I agree that careful and good referencing is important, but I believe linking to what seems like a 'random' geocities site makes the references seem less believable to a reader who doesn't know what is going on.

Yeah I see what you mean. We will definitely have to think about this. Ekantik ^talk 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm aware that the article needs improvement and people are working on it. :) I guess because of the current holiday season things are pretty quiet right now. Ekantik ^talk 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

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)

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)

[edit] Refactoring the lead

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)

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)

[edit] Cult Allegation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Fraud..

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)

[edit] Blunder in the summary: godmen described by his followers

The summary/lead section contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 13 April. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic) (Woodhead/Fletcher and Lochtefeld). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I admit that the then follower Brian Steel in his "The Sathya Sai Baba Comepndium" page 83 notes the use of the word by a follower with a different meaning than the academic use, but again this is an unusual term in the SSB movement. Andries (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andries, congrats on your reinstatement. I would say "godman" would be only used pejoratively, and therefore never, as you say, by devotees. No? Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not never, but of course never pejoratively, but only rarely. It is true that the term godman has been used quite often rather pejoratively by skeptics. Andries (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the then follower Brian Steel writes in his " 1997 book The Sathya Sai Baba Comepndium" page 83. This is the only reference to the word Godman that I was able to find in SSB devotional literature.

Entry Godmen "Godmen and saints are those who have realized God. [..]"

Clearly a very different meaning when compared to the listed references by Woodhead/Fletcher and Lochtefeld in this article and Godman

Andries (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that contributors are more interested in minimizing or maximizing criticisms than in correcting clear mistakes. Andries (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing

[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)

[edit] Mistake or propaganda

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)

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)

[edit] Mistake

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)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.