Talk:Sathya Sai Baba movement/Archive 1

User:BostonMA/Mediation The article Sathya Sai Baba is the subject of Wikipedia:mediation by user:BostonMA and some discussion about this article is going on there too. Partipants in the mediation are user:Andries versus user:Thaumaturgic and user:SSS108

Untitled

TOC

to be added
- Golden age
- Shirdi Sai Baba
- Youth "mythology", biography by Kasturi

Andries

Alan, could you please provide references for the follwing

"Indian community there shortly before Idi Amin came to power and launched his persecution against them."

Thanks Andries 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Andries

I was told this about 24 years ago when i was involved in the SSB community; i don't remeber the details, but the gist of it - whether it was a myth or whether SSB had actually said it, i don't know, but it was told in a way that this was a reliably reported thing - was that when SSB was in Uganda he warned the Indian community that there'd be trouble and they should make preparatioons to move their finances or whatever, but they mostly ignored him and of course Amin came to power and duely stomped down on the "Asians" (Indians)

Significantly, Uganda, as you wrote, is the only country SSB travelled to outside India (i remeber being told this when i was just finding out about SSB), and the timing was right... But like i said, so long ago, and i don't recall the details M Alan Kazlev 05:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

There are so many rumors around SSB that everything has to be referenced very well. So please provide better references or I will delete it. Thanks. Andries 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have references apart from my own memory. I am sure there are people in the SSB community would know about this. I suggest keeping it because it is important, even if it may be part of the mythology. You can always add a word like "reportedly" or "supposedly", until we can get proper references M Alan Kazlev 05:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, I could add something like "many people believe" if you provide references for the warning in a book, not just personal memory. Andries 06:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Okay, i did a google and turned up what seems to be an old wiki edit of the main SSB page

"Sai Baba has left India only once for a visit to Uganda in 1968. It was reported by two devotees, Dr. Patel and Dr. Gadhia, who lived there at the time that Sai Baba warned them to sell their belongings and leave the country. A few years later, Idi Amin pulled his coup and began his murderous rampage telling Asians they must leave the country. Dr. Gadhia, who had heeded Sai Baba's warning, sold all his belongings and escaped to London where he was able to start a new practise. Dr. Patel lost his property but was able to escape."

This confirms that it wasn't just my memory. I don't know the author of the above paragraph though

According to the above quoted passage, Gadhia moved to London. I was able to find an account he gave (narrated to B.Parvatala Rao on March 1, 2004 at Prasanthi Nilayam), in which he confirms the Ugandan incident

http://www.vedamu.org/forum/ExperienceoftheDivinityofBhagavan/DrKishanGadhia.asp

So this (for some reason deleted) paragraph can go either on this page, or, alternatively, on the main Sai Baba page (perhaps that might be a better place for it), along with the above link as a reference M Alan Kazlev 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also why did your remove the external links? I think they belong here too. Though this is part of a series, I think it is must be a complete article. Thanks. Andries 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those links included a large number of critical links, along with links to sites by devotees, and supporters like Joe (who is not a devotee btw). Because the subject of this wikipage is the beliefs and practices of SSB and his organisation, not the controversy (which is very well dealt with on the Allegations page), and because you already have an excellent bibliography on this page, i don't see whyt a long list of links, pro and contra, are necessary on this page. I only retained the official website because that would be a further source of the organisations official teachings, otherwise i'd've scrapped that link too. I guess you can put a small link somewhere in the body of the article to the Allegations page, and hence people can get the links there, but i don't think the Allegations page should have a big "See Also" link or say "main page" or whatever; as these allegations - important and interesting as they may be in themselves - are not pertinant to the beliefs (very well presented on this page) of the organisation itself M Alan Kazlev 05:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The critical websites also contain a lot of information about the beliefs and practices. Andries 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, reference the relevant critical link in the main body of the essay with a number and add it to the References section. Personally though, i find it strange that you should have to use a hostile reference for information on the Official teachings of the SSB organisation. At best they would be just repeating 2nd hand the official teaching, at worst they would be distorting it. It is like writing an article on evolution by using creationist books as a reference.

There is plenty of opportunity to use your critical and hostile references in the allegations page. But this page, if it is about the official teachings, should use official references. Hmm, i just read over your references section here, and unlike the bibliography section, more than half the numbered references are from anti-Sai sources. This indicates to me a POV issue, since we are not supposed to be addressing allegations and criticisms in this particular wiki page. M Alan Kazlev 05:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the official SSB webpages are reliable and put their own teachings in context. Andries 06:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the official teachings don't even know or understand their own teachings, only the critics do?????? M Alan Kazlev 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I meant "the official organisation doesn't even-" (etc) M Alan Kazlev 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The critical websites maintained by ex-followers contain a lot of information written by authors from various backgrounds. They are not necessarily unreliable become they are posted on a critical website.

I condede this point

Besides they try to put the beliefs and practices in context, unlike the website of the Sathya Sai Org that tries to put the beliefs and practices in the best light as possible, like an advertisement.

While the critics present the opposite POV. It is in their interests to demolish and discredit the SSB organisation; they are hardly unbiased!

And besides, this article hardly voices criticism, as could be expected from the title. Andries 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While i agree most of the article is written very well from a NPOV perspective, you have a chapter heading (with link) titled "Youth mythology". In what way does controversy over SSB's date of birth pertain to the official "Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Organisation"? As far as the organisation goes, he was born on November 23, 1926, and that's all there is to it. Even if this wasn't his actual birthdate, that's what the organisation believes and teaches. Since the purpose of this page is surely to report the Beliefs of the Organisation itself, not the findings of critics (which belong to the other pages) this heading (and the link) is irrelevant. M Alan Kazlev 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, okay, you are right that the section "Youth Mythology" and the link to "history and origins of the Sathya Sai Baba movement in the section was inappropriate in this article. I changed it. Andries 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cool :-) M Alan Kazlev 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the 93 years. I thought I had researched it well at the time when I wrote it, but now I can't remember exactly where I found it on Rriddy's website. Why the change? Do you have any references? Thanks. Andries 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article already had "93 years old" and i just reworded it to make it read better stylistically. But like you i have never heard of this 93 years thing, i always thought it was 95 years. So unless you have references it might be better to scrap it M Alan Kazlev 05:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the meaning. I had written after 93 years. You changed it in at 93 years. Yes, I know the 93 years is strange but I had researched it well, I thought, at the moment that I wrote it. Will provide references. Andries 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the 93 years are in the references. See nr. 7 Please be more careful next time in changing referenced information. Andries 06:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

right, sorry, my bad M Alan Kazlev 05:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References On The Page

Although references are cited on this page, they are not referenced in the body of the text. Andries stated that there is no Anti-Sai POV in this article. If that is the case, why are there links to Anti-Sai Sites?

SSS108 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please replace references, not remove them. References are an essential part of a Wikipedia article and it took me a lot of time to collect them. The article contains not a single word of criticm in the main body of text. Andries 06:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there Andries. I removed the links. Can you tell us how the links to Anti/Pro sites are relevant to SSB's teachings? They are not. You are simply trying to add links to Anti-Sai sites. Since you already conceded there are no Anti viewpoints in the article, I want to know why you keep trying to keep the Anti links on the page? What is your reason?

SSS108 03:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, Please respond to the section "Links in Beliefs and practices article" on the mediation page. Thank you. --BostonMA 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did already respond. Andries 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a link to Moreno's webpage "rebutting critics" that is off-topic here. Andries 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not respond and there has not been a consensus with BostonMA either. The links you cite are not relevant to Beliefs and Practices. For those who want to see the link to the page Andries removed (about "rebutting critics"), Click Here

SSS108 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply. [1] Andries 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Discussion About Links Andries discusses Robert Priddy (whose material comprises original research). Andries fails to explain why he want to link to ALL Anti-Sai Sites when all the other sites simply duplicated Priddy's articles on theirs. None of the other sites have separate and original material of their own. So why is Andries trying to cite all the sites instead of the one he thinks is relevant?

SSS108 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, of course exbaba describes the beliefs and practices. Check e.g. the articles by Nagel. I do not understand the problem. All the external links describe the beliefs and practices. Andries 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone who has read the website seriously doubt that they describe the beliefs and practices. They do describe the beliefs and practices and that is why their presence is justified. Do you try to be reasonable, Joe or do you just try your push your POV to the maximum? Andries 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy about the dispute regarding the external links section. Andries 13:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the links are irrelevant to the teachings section. I also added the pro Sathya Sai Baba sites since they all deal, to some extent, with the teachings of Sathya Sai Baba. If new links are added, I hope you explain their relevance on this page. Thaumaturgic 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the relevance of the pro-SSB rebuttals websites for this article? I plan to remove them unless the relevance is explained. I mean the following websites

SaiSathyaSai.com A comprehensive, Pro-Sai website by Gerald Joe Moreno that examines the allegations made by ex-followers, skeptics and critics of Sathya Sai Baba, with extensive links to Pro/Anti Sai Sites.
A Clear View A Pro-Sai website by Ram Das Awle that gives a devotee's interpretation to the allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba.
The Sai Critic A Pro-Sai website that discusses the controversy surrounding Sathya Sai Baba.

Thanks in advance.Andries 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the re-direct to Sathya Sai Organisation because the movement is more than organisation. 12:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba movement/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The presence of self-described "stub" sections determines that this article, for all of its length, can only be counted as a start. The article could use more frequent citations, generally at least one per paragraph. Also, there could probably be rather a lot done stylistically to improve the article. Several paragraphs are only one sentence long, when generally one would hope for at least three sentences per paragraph. Far too many sentences and paragraphs start with the word "He" as well. I will place the article on the attention list, so that I or other members of the project can be reminded to return to it for some of the stylistic attention it requires. Badbilltucker 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with the assessment, except that the presence of stub sections indicate a start class which I find a bit exaggerated. Some more references have already been added. Most of the other described problems can also be fixed quite easily unless I get banned by the arbcom. Andries 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)