Revision as of 22:53, 13 January 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sathya Sai Baba article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Sathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. 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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Ethics / Religion / Eastern / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Metaphysics Ethics Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Contemporary philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Botschaften aus dem Jenseits Göttliche Gaben oder Betrug?". Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen. August 4, 2004. "Debate: Sai Baba, a godsend?". CNN-IBN. November 24, 2006.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

• Negative information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed without discussion. The three revert rule shall not apply to such removal. This includes links to critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role).
• Information in an article or on a talk page regarding Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him which is poorly sourced may be removed. This includes links to websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him. It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)
• Andries and SSS108 are forgiven any offenses they have committed by introducing unreliable information into the article and encouraged to edit in compliance with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. For the Arbitration Committee. 03:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Misplaced Pages contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources.

• Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. When contributing on talk pages, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Misplaced Pages policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons.
• Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles.
• The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward.

This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion at the bottom of this page

"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.

Article uses mostly not reliable sources

Puttaparthi was a small village in the early 1970s

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village."

references

1. Schulman, Arnold (1971). Baba. Viking Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-670-14343-X.

)

Headline text

Love is My Form, again!

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

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

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

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

Complying with requests for clean-up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Political Row Section:

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

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

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

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

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

• Biography Section:

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

• Claims of Materialisation and Institution Sections:

These sections also will need specific clean up discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you're saying is equivalent to saying, "It seems that you are willing to follow Misplaced Pages policy ... what is wrong with not following it?" For example: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:SOURCES, policy). SSS is not third-party, and it has no such professional structure in place. "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see the discussion of self-published sources for exceptions" (WP:NOR, policy). Self-published sources like Sai Baba's discourses must not be used if they are unduly self-serving or involve claims about third parties (WP:SPS, policy). "Misplaced Pages articles should rely on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." (WP:PSTS, policy). Scholars have looked at the primary sources and have come to their conclusions about it. If you feel that you can provide a better summary or analysis than they have, or that "scholars have paid insufficient attention", then you should endeavour to get your analysis published by a reputable publisher; Misplaced Pages is not the place for you to publish your original insights, even if you consider them to be superior to those published by scholars. And if we are happily in agreement about the suitability of Babb, then let us please work on rewriting the biography section using Babb as a source, rather than the primary sources. I will try to get hold of the paper by Urban. --JN466 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, I do agree with you that there are a lot of academic materials from university presses which could be used. There are academic publication from Babb Lawrence.

Here's the list proposed by the Arbitration commitee to be used as source for this article.

• Klass, MortonSinging with Sai Baba: The Politics of Revitalization in Trinidad, Westview Press, 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.
• McKean, Lise, Divine enterprise : Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement ISBN 0226560090 and ISBN 0226560104
• White, Charles, SJ, The Sai Baba Movement: Approaches to the Study of India Saints, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 pp. 863-878
• Bann, LA Babb, Lawrence A , Sathya Sai Baba's Magic, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 116-124
• Hawley, John S. (Ed.), Saints and Virtues, University of California Press, ISBN 0520061632
• Urban, H. B. Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism, Academic Press, 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, 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, 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.
• Kent, Alexandra, Divinity, Miracles and Charity in the Sathya Sai Baba Movement of Malaysia, Ethons, 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, 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
• 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, 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; (Contains an entry on Sai Baba)
• Stallings, Stephanie, Avatar of Stability, Harvard International Review.
• Hummel, Reinhart, Guru, Miracle Worker, Religious Founder: Sathya Sai Baba, Materialdienst der EZW, 47 Jahrgang.

Some of these sources are already being used in the article under other sections.

However, please note that all these scholars have used 'Narayana Kasturi's - Biography as the very basis for describing the life story of Sathya Sai Baba (Biography) adding their own interpretations on top of it.

I also came across an academic publication from the New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies - "THE GLOBAL GURU:SAI BABA AND THE MIRACLE OF THE MODERN" by RICHARD WEISS1 from Victoria University of Wellington.

I am will look into these academic sources to see how it could be used in the Biography Section. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Radiantenergy, it is precisely those interpretations by these scholars that Misplaced Pages is interested in. --JN466 02:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

None of the listed sources give a serious biography of SSB, because the biography is basically unknown, as some of the academics admit. The sources are better suited for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Andries (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of Sathya Sai Baba website sources occurs because

• most (close to all) books describing Sathya Sai Baba's life are based on the writings of Narayana Kasturi and the biography he wrote of Sathya Sai Baba
  
• these books and Sathya Sai Baba's discourses are available on line and free to wikipedia editors.
  

to ask for an editor to make a financial investment to purchase books and sources is quite a proposal. (especially when most of the biographical information is already provided) i'd like to hope those proposing to improve the article are also making the same investments.

J929 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

J929, as I have repeatedly pointed out, some of these books and sources have a free preview in google books and/or in amazon.com or amazon.co.uk that you can view at any time without paying anything. This applies in particular to Babb: , to Beckford: , to Eade: , to Kent: . I will be happy if you work on extracting from these scholarly sources what you can for our biography here. (Remember that you may be able to view pages missing in google books in amazon.) By the way, I estimate that over the past two years I have spent at least $2,000 on books and other sources related to Misplaced Pages research! --JN466 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki,Sourced quotes by SSB or about SSB from primary source material can go here Wikiquote:Sathya Sai Baba. Using primary source material for the article would only work if there was only one competent, knowledgeable and fair editor. Not when there is more than one, or when the editor is incompetent or when competent editors have widely divergent views on the subject. In other words, it will not work for Misplaced Pages and certainly not for this article. Andries (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andries, you have been around Misplaced Pages for a long time. We HAVE to use secondary sources for a living biography. The only exceptions are for very uncontroversial information, birth dates, number of children etc. If secondary sources have never dealt with the subject, then the article should be stubbed as non-notable. I know it is tempting to insert information from primary sources when editors have strong feelings one way or another about the subject (it can easily be made to reflect their POV) but this temptation must be resisted. Good progress is being made here and needs to continue. If editors can agree on their understanding of sourcing the result will be more stable than if an outsider jumps in and does mass deletions. Please continue. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the article is notable and clearly the article should not be stubbed even though few reliable sources are available for the biography for the same reason that Jesus should not be stubbed. Andries (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the article that needs to be notable, it is the subject. If he has not been covered by scholarly or otherwise reputable sources, then stubbing is the way to go. Personally, I don't expect this to be the case. But we can't say, "O well, there isn't any reliable biographic material on him, so we need to use unreliable (primary) stuff." Regarding your Jesus comparison, Jesus is not a living person, so he isn't here to write or authorise his own biography. In 2000 years, all the sources have become secondary. Even so, I see a banner on that article warning that material from "affiliated sources" should not be used where more neutral and scholarly sources are available. Let's proceed with that here. I should also say that unless there are some very serious attempts soon to comply with the administrator's above comment that the source problem should be "addressed immediately" I will have to start work on it myself. It would be much better if involved editors did this themselves. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say, is that there is a similarity in the sourcing for Jesus and Sathya Sai Baba: reputable secondary sources have stated for both persons that they are not sure about many important aspects of the biography. In addition, both the subjects are notable and should not be stubbed in spite of the lack of certainty about their biographies. Andries (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. If necessary, the article can say that hard info is difficult to find and leave it there. Let's look for the sources now, and maybe it won't come to that. Rumiton (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

see here for a start Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources. I could use help to translate university press book by Poggendorf-Kakar from German. Andries (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources - List has a number of unreliable and self published material. This source list has to be reviewed and corrected.

• A better start will be to use the list of academic sources provided by Arbitration commitee. You can find the list here in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=334881189. User:Jayen466 had provided links to some of the sources available online which were proposed by the arbitration commitee here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=335035892&oldid=335027333
• You can find the related discussions under http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Complying_with_requests_for_clean-up Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good start. My time is very limited, but if you send me the sentences you want to use I can help with the translation. Please watch out for the issue of context in selecting pieces. I have also been sent some other scholarly sources that I am reading through at the moment. Rumiton (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) JN is a native German speaker and very fluent in English, so perhaps we could ask him to check the final result. Rumiton (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help, though I'm too busy in RL this week to be of much use. (You're welcome to drop me a mail, Andries; I have e-mail enabled.) --JN466 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Moon Miracle" Removal

in accordance with wikipedia policy to keep the article size at bay, the section on the moon article was removed as it seems of little importance as a controversial subject. there is also a webpage with claims of the "moon miracle" being witnessed by many people. http://www.saibabaofindia.com/news4oct_sai_baba.htm that seems to refute paragraph subject.

J929 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you J929. Good find. Regardless of whether it happened, the paragraph was additional clutter.

Boromir123 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This devotee or official site is entirely unusable as a source of information for Misplaced Pages, whether it is pro- or anti- miracle. Rumiton (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to shorten references in this way: . What is displayed for the end user is the same, and many editors prefer having the template format in the article, as it makes it easy to achieve consistent formating of references. --JN466 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored banners

The shortening currently being done by some editors is welcome, but there are still multiple issues with this article, especially the use of primary sources. This issue will not go away. Please leave the banners there until agreement is reached. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I will make a start in compacting and neutralising the lead and biography. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The main allegations should be mentioned in the summary: sexual abuse of young men and fake miracles, because this has been mentioned in nearly all important publications since 2000. Andries (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Summary should be neutral in tone with out pushing any point of view.

• Allegations are still a very minority view compared to the vast number of positive and neutral sources published by academics and other well reputed sources on Sathya Sai Baba.
• Sathya Sai Baba was not found to be guilty of any crime or allegation in any court of Law. The only known allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba which went to Court is the 'Alaya Rahm Case'. Alaya Rahm who claimed allegations of abuse in the 2004 BBC documentary self dismissed his allegation case on "Sathya Sai Baba" in the Superior Court in 2006. As per the results of the case he cannot file a case on Sathya Sai Baba once again either in U.S or in India for the same claims.
• The old BBC 2004 documentary which focussed on 'Alaya Rahm' allegation was asked to be removed from the article in the WP:RS discussion due to BLP concerns due to the above reason.

The Summary is quite well written and neutral in tone and is sourced to academic sources now and it should remain that way. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reputable sources treating the allegations form a clear majority of the sources after the year 2000, even without the BBC. Do you want me to re-produce a list? For example, the only major publication in the USA was by Salon.com which was heavily critical. There are no academic neutral sources who focus on the life of SSB. They all focus on the movement. For example, Palmer treats the allegation by assessing the impact on the movement, not by assessing the biographical aspect of the allegations.
• The BBC documentary which was very well researched is not obsoleted by a minor publication. The BBC documentary was never retracted nor was any other publication retracted that detailed the Alaya Rahm case (under a pseudonym), like Mick Brown's Divine Downfall, or the Danish state documentary. This proves that the trial that should have caused the obsoleteness of the BBC documentary is of minor significance.
• Even the lonely planet guides have a very short entry on SSB/Puttaparhi mentioning the "big controversy". To summarize, it Radiant's energy's view that the controversies are a small minority is completely misguided. Andries (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Andries, My views are very clear. I keep wondering why you are here inspite of being banned from this article. Its no surprise to me that you are still pushing your personal agenda of adding more and more criticism into this article

• Allegations of abuse against Sathya Sai Baba is a recent event since 2000. None of the sources written before like Babb, Kent mention about these allegations. After 'Alaya Rahm' went public with his abuse allegation in 2000 all the allegation stories started circulating in the internet. 2000 - 2005 was the peak time of allegation reports. Sources published then talked about these allegations. Since 2006 after 'Alaya Rahm' self dismissed his allegation case in Superior Court these stories have diminished too. Even the reference we use for Criticism section are old allegation reports printed between 2000 - 2006.
• The statement that BBC documentary did not retract hence the trial is of minor significance is your personal opinion. This does not really undermine the trial. Anyway BBC is known for its controversial Bias comments and probably does not care. There's even an article 'Criticism of BBC' in wikipedia. But in wikipedia we care about BLP articles and lay emphasis on NPOV. Our objective here is not to project minority view like a majority view.
• 'Allegation' reports are very minority view compared to the hundreds of positive and neutral academic and printed secondary sources on Sathya Sai Baba. These allegation reports probably had a minor impact on the movement. As per the new 2008 academic publication by Smriti Srinivas, Professor, Anthropology - 'In the Presence of Sai Baba (2008)' estimates the followers to be 10 million which is much higher than the earlier 1999 estimate.

The Criticism section covers these allegation reports printed during 2000 - 2005. We have enough criticism already. This is a BLP article it should be neutral in tone. Don't keep pushing your personal agenda into this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The main allegations are not responsible for Sai Baba's popularity and fame. The allegations have not been proven nor have the one time stories been followed up on since the BBC documentary in 2004. The story has died. To include these allegations in the summary would give way more importance than is justified as they are fanciful and are clearly an extreme minority point of view. This is proven by the fact that the subject's life has not been impacted what so ever by the allegations and nothing has ever come of any allegation. Nothing has happened. The allegations are mentioned in the body of the article. As it stands now the section is already too big. For example Obama is being accused of not being a U.S. citizen and many other things. A good portion of people believe this, but it has not been proven. Fox news has done countless negative stories on Obama. All the crazy things said about Obama mentioned in many news organizations are NOT in his summary.Sbs108 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point re the Obama article is well taken, but it isn't up to us to measure the impact of allegations on a subject's life and notability. In Obama's case, reputable sources examined and dismissed the importance of those allegations against him. Hopefully our sources will help us with Sai Baba as well. Rumiton (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Urban (2003) mentions the allegations. At present, there is no criticism at all in the lede, which surely is not appropriate. --JN466 22:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

upon reading some of the results of the "clean up", the question arises, has the contributing editor even read anything about the article's subject, Sai Baba?
the page now reads, "On 8 March 1940, while living with his grandfather, Sathya was apparently stung by a scorpion" where is it written or implied that Sathyanarayan was living in Puttaparthi at this time? if you had read anything from his biographer or even read the previous version of the wikipedia page you would have known that he (Sai Baba) was living in Urvankonda with his brother at the time. http://www.vahini.org/sss/i/serpent.html
what type of editing is this? it is nicely sourced (or poorly, as the information is wrong) but what information are you giving? what process lead this editor to write this garbage? why is this process being employed if the outcome is wrong information?
what is the intent behind this writing? most of the information (ie. life incidences) that is (was) present on the biography section was referened to Babbs, a reliable source (among others), why then is the information being removed?
and more pertanently, to what degree (and by what measure) is the article being condensed as to give false information?

how is this type of editing improving the article?

J929 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I inferred that he was at his grandfather's from the dates. If that is wrong, and you have a source to say so, correct it. Please be civil in your responses, and avoid words like "garbage" in describing other editor's efforts. If we are to make progress in this article, politeness is absolutely necessary. The previous information about his grndfather's request to be helped by him and so on, apart from being sourced from primary sources, is detail that does not concern Misplaced Pages. Please self revert. Similarly the primary sourced details of his illness. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

J929, the good thing about this is, it's a Wiki. If one of us makes a mistake - we are all human around here - it is easily fixed. But please stop adding more primary source citations to the article, and don't add material that is only mentioned in primary sources. We need secondary sources. --JN466 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a challenging task to take bits and pieces of information from different secondary sources and put it together to present correctly the biography as per the original. Its okay to rectify and correct if there are mistakes. Its a group effort. It takes time to look at these sources and built the article but in the long run its good for the article if it has a good backing from secondary academic sources. It will be appreciated better by wikipedians as well as other users who read this article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the Primary sources - the scorpian incident and the following illness is mentioned in detail in Richard Weiss article as well as in Kent. We can use these references. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just attempted some more. I have left some primary sourced info in as it seemed uncontroversial, but some of it was hard to understand. Please have a look. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton, I added more details about his 1940 proclamation from Kent. This is another important incident from his life. It is in page 38 - Divinity and diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia By Alexandra Kent. For now I have mentioned the page number range where the biography section is available online in the initial citation.

From 1968 - 2005 no Biography information is available in the secondary sources. I am not able to find even major inauguration dates after that from the Secondary sources nor important places he visited. Can we use source vahini.org or Radio Sai source just to mention important events in his life like the important places he visited or some thing like the 'Sundaram was inaugurated in such and such year etc. This is just to provide some important information to users with out conveying any point of view?. This will be the same issue when we go to the Belief and Ashram section. In the Wp:RS discussion I had raised this issue about why we may need to use the official sites just to provide user information not available in secondary sources just like other religious sites which uses their official websites for such information. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. It shouldn't be a problem if it is bare facts, and not "unduly self-serving." You might also write, "According to his organisation..." I will be busy for a few days. See you then. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers / citation style

Radiantenergy, thanks for citing the secondary sources. However, please make sure you always give the page number for each citation, otherwise it is difficult to verify the text. Could you add the missing numbers? It would also make sense to use citation templates like {{cite book}} when citing a book. --JN466 02:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Split things like Babb? For example:<ref name="BabbLawrence123">{{cite book}} and
<ref name="BabbLawrence456to457">? Esowteric+Talk 10:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Things like "Haraldsson, op. cit, pp. 43" are not the way to go. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we're keeping some of the references to reliably sourced web pages, it would be better to use {{cite web}} as apart from anything, bare URLs are prone to WP:LINKROT. Esowteric+Talk 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Puttaparthi

If anyone can look for a secondary source for the developments that have taken place there, please do. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The bias comments Comments pertaining to false claims of Sai Baba should not be put on there; they must be 100% proven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.244.168 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias Views

Only 100% factual info should be made; not false info by false devotees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.244.168 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. If you get yourself a user page and log on you are welcome to join the discussion. Rumiton (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

an account is not a prerequisite to a view... if you can make a comment, you are welcome to...

J929 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. It is just very difficult to have a conversation with a number, especially when there are several of them at once. Rumiton (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of primary sources

I notice a lot of information from organisation and devotee sources is being reintroduced into the article. This is in contradiction of the above warning from administrars to keep the article based on secondary sources, and the banner on the article page which states, This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links. (September 2009) Please follow these guidelines and remove these additions. I will be back to help more by the end of the week. Rumiton (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class philosopher articles
• Low-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• C-Class metaphysics articles
• Low-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• C-Class ethics articles
• Low-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• C-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Low-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
• Low-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
• Contemporary philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists