Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 16

Sathya Geetha

The sentence above is taken from the article. Dhaneshmon 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.138.56 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Puttaparthi

Citation for sentence (addition in italics)

"Puttaparthi, where Sai Baba was born and still lives, was until the early 1970s originally a small village.[citation needed]"<ref>{{cite book | last = Schulman | first = Arnold | title = Baba | publisher = [[Viking Press]] | year= 1971 | pages = 3 | isbn = 0-670-14343-X}}</ref>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Satya Sai Baba was declared dead on 24th April 2011 at 7.40 A.M. (IST) which was under the Uttarasadha Nakshtaram and Bahula Saptami thithi. 59.161.54.82 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not accepted. Please give a reliable source that provides these details. The current Times of India source doesn't. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Death

IT has just broken, if this is a good enough source it should be added to the article: [1] 174.74.77.113 (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How can we integrate this with the following? "He will die at the age of ninety-six, but his body will stay young until then." That is from a paragraph in which SSB describes his life. Babb, Lawrence (1986). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 1577661532., page 166Andries (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Easy! Just prefix it with: "he claimed that". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Name form

I've had a bunch of Indian friends over the years, but I think that they all "Americanized" their names, for the most part. I'm unsure what this gentleman's "last name" would be. Is it just "Baba", or would it be "Sai Baba"?

The reason that I ask is that, according to our style guides (See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style), the usual convention is to address the subject of an article by last name. Doing so is somewhat formal, yet (usually) avoids potentially sticky and confusing issues with things like titles, monikers, and such. I see at least one place where a "He" should be changed to his name, but using his full "Sathya Sai Baba" goes a bit overboard, in my view.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Then use SSB , instead of Sathya Sai Baba. Ratnakaram would be very strange. Andries (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"SSB" strikes me as too informal. "Sai Baba" seems to be preferred, based on a census of the sources in the article. "Raju" seems appropriate for the small section of the article describing his childhood and the period of time before be became a spiritual figure (which is when he changed his name, I believe).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Sai Baba is a bad idea, because there is another Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sai Baba is a title, not a name. Baba means father. No doubt there are many, but I can't see any likelihood of confusing them. Sai Baba is what the subject is known as. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Eagle documentary

In the 1995 TV documentary Guru Busters,[111] produced by filmmaker Robert Eagle for UK's Channel 4, Sathya Sai Baba was accused of faking his materializations. A videotape[112] suggested that magician's tricks were involved.

The above is sourced to a description on Eagle's production site (Eagle and Eagle). As such it concerns me that this is a primary source.. I'd suggest either a re-word or a secondary source that reliably supports the second sentence. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This could be removed or reworded. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm noticing a lot of self-published ("Sai Baba Publishing" was/is rather prolific) and primary sources, throughout. The deeper that I look at this article, the more it concerns me that the controversies around it have simply been glossed over with a veneer of referencing, rather then truely being resolved. Note that there was' an inline dispute tag further down in the paragraph we're discussing here, as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion before about using Primary sources in some sections like Ashram or Organisation structure section. It was agreed in a BLP discussion that even other wikipedia religious articles like 'Church Of Christ' and others use primary sources from their official site. It was decided that this could be permitted as you won't find this information from outside secondary sources anywhere. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no "bright line rule" against using primary sources, but they need to be used carefully. It's better to replace them completely, if able. Primary and self-published sources definitely do not resolve controversial content though. That's my only real concern, here. The article is getting a bit "hot" at the moment, in terms of editing, but I'll go through and tag references for problems later on so that we can all more easily see where any potential issues are at a glance.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We will address them eventually as its a time consuming process and will need to go through lots of discussions. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

notable

whoa re these people? notable in the south? [2][3][4][5][6][7]Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

huh? I'm confused. These all appear to be Tweets (Tweeters?) regardless, so... should we care at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand either. Twitter pages are purely POV. They have no place here. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not "POV" (although I expect that individual twitters will often express the "twitter'ers" personal point of view). The problem with Twitters as a source is that they are not verifiable, are always primary sources, and are rarely reliable. Careful about throwing around acronyms willy-nilly. Misusing them can and does often backfire (you might be interested in seeing Wikipedia:ARGH!) :).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

nothing wrong with twitter if its from a notable source (a lot of notable people have twitter accounts where one can see their view (why they give it is a different matter ;)) those seemed to be videos of people (who are possibly southern celebrities in some field (politics or filmdom)), i just havent heard of them so was quering their notabilityLihaas (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one to say that the likes of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc... have absolutely no place here in Wikipedia. The thing is, those Twitters, YouTube videos (assuming that we're talking about a personal video, rather then say one of The Associated Press's video feeds), blog posts, etc... that we do use need to be used in the same way that we'd use newspaper editorials. Namely, we should only use them very sparingly, and with extreme caution.

With these links in particular, and this article in particular, I just don't see the need for the linked to content in this article. If we were writing an article about, say, "The death of Sathya Sai Baba", or something similar, then it might be a different story. This being a bio about his whole life though... I mean, this looks like fairly trivial stuff, based on a (very) brief glimpse of what's linked to.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As above, but also Lihaas, notability is not the test to be applied to sources, notability is how we decide whether a subject belongs as a Wikipedia topic. Sources need to be reputable. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Responses section

I seem to have reverted someone (possibly unintentionally), with this edit. There was an edit conflict, so I'm not sure what exactly happened.

however, the point of [8] and [9] is that Wikipedia should not "speak with it's own voice". Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to make any claims itself. So, rather then saying "Neither Sathya Sai Baba nor any organizations associated with him have been charged or convicted...", it's much more appropriate to source such statements by saying, for example: "In an article for The Pioneer on March 31, 2009, Sandhya Jain points out that neither Sathya Sai Baba, nor any organizations associated with him, have been charged or convicted..."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid "points out" too (that's always a difficult one to avoid)... maybe just "said that" --Errant ^(chat!) 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Bad habit, for me. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.57.31.46, 24 April 2011

Hello,

suggestion: the title above the picture (midnight 24th/25th.4.2011) says "[REDACTED]", instead it should display the person's name most likely this is vandalism and not wikipedia style the accusations are mentioned in the article

Thank you!

Thomas 84.57.31.46 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes this was reverted and I have removed the text from the page history. As you say it is vandalism, and a pretty serious piece of defamation. If you spot this in the future the best approach is to follow the advice as WP:OVERSIGHT. (I've also redacted the words here on the talk page, just for safeties sake :)). Thanks for spotting this! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mohanki, 25 April 2011

On March 28, Sai Baba was hospitalized and on dialysis April 24, 2011. Sai Baba, died Sunday morning in a hospital Mohanki (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• - Hi, your requested addition is uncited and to be accepted would require a WP:RS also the detail, or at least most of it (dialysis?) is already in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

death reactions

this seemed to censor content from a notable person with an RS source saying "Twitter feeds are purely POV and have no place here" well, this is not sourced to a primary source (her twitter acct.) but to a RS outlet cited across WP.

Further more [10] and [11] are deceptive edit summaries that make it hard to assume AGF when its said to be "cleaned" but instead removed multiple RS sources to notable people and other relvant info. I have since restored it because its removal had no grounds for legitimacy and we can dscuss it here.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My feeling on the content is "meh", it's trivial content taken from Twitter. Just tabloid stuff. The quote itself is kinda cherry picked and barely makes sense (in terms of how it is relevant), if we deal with this is it is best done in a sentence that clearly explains Nasreen's view etc. It is usually a bad idea to refer to such things as "censorship" --Errant ^(chat!) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, on all counts.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree also. The comment is so poorly written it says more about her as a person and writer than it actually adds anything notable about this persons life and death, I removed it, again User:Lihaas has put it in about three times already. I was going to add it at the writers article but I was lazy, I might add it there tomorrow. Bangladeshi, muslim turned atheism activist writer Taslima Nasreen external ref - What is her relevance in the issue, none at all. I would be careful about adding many reactions to his death and only the most notable ones and from people associated with the field the subject is involved in, people respected in such matters and watch out for attacks and soapboxing like this one.Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct to Sanal Edamaruku to say that Sai Baba did not speak any other language than Telugu and traveled only once in his whole life abroad – to visit his friend Idi Amin in Uganda?http://indianrationalists.blogspot.com/.--Nrahamthulla (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The blog posting is not a wikipedia reliable source and its also basically an opinionated attack, so . no and no. Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bu it was removed with a deceptive edit summary, how is that ok?

we can reword/improve on it, but the person is notable and on reactions we do show different views see FadlallahLihaas (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? Notable applies to the subjects of biographies. We need sources that are reputable. Blogs and tweets almost never are. If a notable person says something about a subject, we need a reputable source to tell us about it. I hope this makes it clearer. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It might also help if there's fewer accusations of deception, and whatnot. There's that whole "assume good faith" thing, and all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton, Off2riorob and Ohms law it cannot be used. We are trying to write encyclopedia and not a tabloid. There will be lot of sensational and tabloid news floating around in different sources we may not be able to add them all here if it fails the reliability or NPOV policy. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in the summary

Conjuring tricks that devotees see as evidence as divinity. sourced to one single source. ~I think statements that can be sourced to only one source should not be in the summary. Urban, Hugh B. (2003). "Avatar for Our Age: Sathya Sai Baba and the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism". Religion (Elsevier) 33 (1): 82. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622940/description#description. Retrieved 2010-01-05. This is untrue and underestimates devotees. It also contradicts Babb's redemptive encounters. Babb is the most authoritative source on the SSB movement. I will post from Babb an excerpt later. Can this statement that is at best one-sided get removed from the summary? Andries (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mistakes in the summary. You gave only a partial incomplete sentence with out quoting the exact text from the article.

The article states that "The apparent materialising of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches by Baba has been a source of both fame and controversy – skeptics consider these simple conjuring tricks while devotees consider them evidence of divinity."

• There are several scholarly sources such as Babb, Kent and Haraldsson which supports the above statement. This statement is covered more in depth in the Miracle section. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Again, Babb contradicts it. So please move that statement out of the summary. Andries (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• For a start, some former followers like Tal Brooke believe in SSB but not on his divinity. This was also described in the BBC documentary Secret Swami. Andries (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of effort went into that wording. That doesn't make it carved in stone, but it looks neutral and verifiable to me. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of effort, but it is not true. Andries (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that, while not being a reputable source, you have a lot of 1st hand knowledge here. How would you describe the attitude of devotees to the miracles? Rumiton (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Would you mind not inserting comments between other editors' posts? It destroys the flow of the discussion (see top of page.) Ty. Rumiton (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Andries, several people claim first they were followers then they say they stopped being followers. One of the scholarly source points out that there's an estimated 10 million followers. Some of them might be claiming first then say they are not. You cannot write wikipedia based on few individual claims. None of the scholarly work quoted 'Tal Brooke' as a prominent disciple or follower like say Jesus's prominent disciples. What you are saying does not make sense. Here we are talking about his miracles. Every scholarly source has a chapter of his miracle and his followers believing those miracles. Your arguments are not clear and valid. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a quote from Modern Miracles in Haraldsson Chapter 1, We are Intrigued (page 20). It states as follows.
• "Small, narrow streams of honey like substance could also be seen on some of the photos.. For the devotees in Kanpur the phenomena were a sign of Sai Baba's presence...."
• There are several such incidents mentioned in Haraldsson and other scholarly sources to support the above statements. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Haraldsson did not investigate the SSB movement, unlike Babb. He investigated miracles. Andries (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are miracles not what we are talking about? Rumiton (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about the question on what basis the faith of SSB devotees is based. I do not think that is very much based on acts that can be interpreted as sleight of hand. It is more based on miracles stories that cannot be explained by sleight of hand. Andries (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. Can you give us the quote from Babb that will clarify that some of the occurrences did not appear to have any logical explanation? Rumiton (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not have an exact equivalent source for my personal experience, but here is something that contradicts the summary. Babb Redemptive Encounters page 183 "... it is possible to 'believe' in the miracles without believing in Sathya Sai Baba." Please understand that there are thousands of miracle stories that cannot be explained by sleight of hand. Andries (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rumiton, I am also going dig for more scholarly sources to support this statement. But I may need some time. Lets not rush and change till we get to the bottom of this and discuss and arrive at a proper agreement like how we did for other sections. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that a statement that is contradicted by at least two sources (BBC Secret Swami and Babb Redemptive Encounters) should not be in the summary as if it were a fact. It should be moved immediately. Andries (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur, Radiantenergy. I feel in no hurry. But Andries, just when I feel I am starting to grasp what you are saying it slithers away out of my reach. You now use the word "stories." Does this imply that Babb says there is a mythology of miraculous tales that affect and unite devotees, rather than some common and valid personal experiences? It's an important point. Rumiton (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What Babb writes is that non-devotees accept SSB's miracles, but do not accept his divinity. A false statement in the summary should be dealt with quickly. My personal experience (i.e. that faith in SSB depends more on other miracles than sleight of hand) is somewhat different from what Babb described, but in sharp contradiction to the summary. I know personal experience does not count, but the two sources that contradict the summary should lead to immediate correction. Andries (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Babb, it is not enough to believe in SSB's miracles (which quite a lot of Indian non-devotees do), but in addition to believing in miracles Babb says that a personal relationship with SSB is important. Andries (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Andries, Its not clear what you are trying to say. To me it looks more like you are trying to interpret Babb words as per your personal views. The newer statement is more confusing than your earlier statement. We don't want to start interpreting scholarly sources that will again amount to user POV. I think the Summary looks just fine. Although I will get more clear and well defined scholarly sources to support it in a day. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the summary is untrue, according to Babb, read pages 183-184 in Redemptive Encounters. Please stop ignoring the most authoritative source on the SSB movement. No,I did not interpret what Babb says, according to my personal experience. Yes, I have my personal experience which I openly admitted is somewhat different from Babb and is rather irrelevant, but of course it bothers me to read in the summary a statement that contradicts so clearly my personal experience. Andries (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that is far too strong worded. If the word "evidence" in the summary would be left out then I think there is no problem. Andries (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about the word "signs" instead of evidence. I have seen the term "signs of divinity" being used in some scholarly material when talking about devotee's perception of Sathya Sai Baba's miracles. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be better. Andries (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No.of followers

The number of his followers seem to be changing frequently in the article. One moment, its 10 million and then its 30 million. If they are in dispute, why not mention both? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.115.119 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So many edits are happening lately that no one can keep up with the nonsense that is being added. Give it a week or two and it will get sorted out. Rumiton (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

On June 6, 1993, six inmate students of Prasanthi Nilayam were found murdered inside the bedroom of Sai Baba including his then personal assistant, Radha Krishna Menon. The police FIR stated that the close aides of the Baba were killed during an assassination attempt. Critics claimed that the murder attempt was a foiled revenge plot by the inmates after years of sexual abuse. The real facts of the case still remain a mystery with the police refusing to devulge any details.

• It is in a seperate article 1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam that I think should be merged with Sathya Sai Baba movement because the degree of involvement of SSB personally is not clear and may be very little. Andries (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We had several discussions before on this. This [1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam] has nothing to do with either the Sathya Sai Movement nor the fringe theories have no place in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Trying to vandalize the article using unreliable sources and fringe theories at this time will not be tolerated. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article is merely based on fringe theories then it should be deleted. If it fails deletion (as it has) then it should be properly integrated in Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you suddenly interested in this proposal at this time? Your sudden interest raises more questions about your real intentions. You should n't be even writing here after being banned from the Sathya Sai Baba article by the arbitration commitee due to your Conflict of interest with Sathya Sai Baba. Radiantenergy (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I only answered a new comer to this article who most likely did not know that this article existed. It is very difficult to find and not even in the SSB category. Andries (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You know very well that the arbcom gave me right to comment here. Andries (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sudden interest in making major decisions related to the Sathya Sai Baba article at the time of his passing raises serious questions. I suspect your Conflict Of Interest with Sathya Sai Baba is playing a role here. As I said before any kind of vandalism, adding fringe theories and destabilising the article will not be tolerated... Radiantenergy (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that vandalism is defined in Wikipedia is intentional bad edits. Please do not label edits as vandalism so easily. Andries (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba had said he will live until the year 2022. Eight years after his death, in 2030, he will be born a third time as a reincarnation in the Mysore region of Karnataka state and be known as Prema Sai Baba. Prema Sai Baba will announce his identity to the world in 2044 at the age of 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.arya (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• On 6 June 1993, four youths who were devotees and resided in the ashram, broke into Satya Sai Baba's quarters in Puttaparthi armed with knives. Sathya Sai Baba managed to escape and raised an alarm. In the scuffle, two of Satya Sai Baba's attendants, his chauffeur and cook, were killed, and the four assailants shot dead by the police. He was never investigated by the Indian authorities.
  • "Religion Obituaries; Satya Sai Baba". The Telegraph. 2011-04-24. Retrieved 2011-04-25.

This information was deleted with the edit summary, "There is a separate article on this". Two points: I don't see any link to any relevant article about this, and, regardless of other articles, it's an event in this subject's life and therefore should be included. The Telegraph is a reliable source, they give the issue a fair amount of space, and it's clearly relevant to this article. I note that the biographical material between 1973 and 2011 is extraordinarily thin. There is certainly room for this incident which apparently resulted in several deaths. It's strange that basic biographical material would be deleted entirely.   Will Beback  talk  15:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• In 1993 he was the victim of an apparent assassination attempt, when four armed men broke into his private rooms. His chauffeur and cook were murdered, but Sai Baba managed to escape unscathed. The intruders were shot dead by police. Thereafter, pilgrims entering the ashram had to pass through metal detectors. According to ashram officials the assassination attempt was the result of a struggle between rival factions of devotees who had been denied positions of influence in the ashram.
  • "Religion Obituaries; Satya Sai Baba". The Telegraph. 2011-04-24. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
• On June 6, 1993, an attempt was allegedly made on his life by his close aides. Six inmates of Prasanthi Nilayam were killed right inside the Baba's bedroom. All of them were part of the "inner circle" of Baba. His personal assistant Radha Krishna Menon was among those killed in the incident. Facts of the case still remain a mystery.
  • Who is Sri Sathya Sai Baba? Press Trust of India, Updated: April 24, 2011 17:53 IST
• On June 6, 1993, intruders — said to be jealous disciples — barged into Sai Baba’s apartment. The spiritual leader escaped the bid on his life but six persons, including two attendants and a police officer, were killed. Sai Baba later pardoned the assailants.
  • Bhagwan to millions April 25 , 2011 The Telegraph of Calcutta
• In 1993, four men armed with knives burst into his private apartment in what was described as an assassination attempt. A fight ensued in which two devotees were stabbed to death before police shot and killed the assailants.
  • Controversial Indian Spiritual Leader Passes Away at 86 April 24, 2011 Jakarta Globe
• The sensational murder of two of Sathya Sai Baba's attendants followed by the immediate killing of four youths in a police firing in his bedroom on the night of June 6, 1993, was also attributed to his alleged sexual abuse. Five former students of the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning had allegedly barged into the Sai Baba's bedroom with the aim of assassinating him. When his attendants Radha Krishna Menon and Sai Kumar Mahajan confronted them, they were stabbed to death. The police investigation made no headway. The CBI probe was also suspended later for want of evidence.
  • Untouched by rampant sex abuse slurs Mail Today. New Delhi: Apr 10, 2011.
• The killing of four alleged intruders into Sai Baba's bedroom by police in 1993 still remains a mystery.
  • Sathya Sai Baba: A village boy who became demi god (Obituary) The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Apr 24, 2011.
• The ashram also said Sai Baba had survived an attempt on his life in 1993. It said that six devotees, including the guru's personal assistant, were killed in his bedroom and that they had tried to attack him, although the details of the case remain a mystery.
  • Sathya Sai Baba, 84, Guru With Millions of Followers; [Obituary (Obit); Biography] The Associated Press. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 25, 2011. pg. A.23
• And in 1993 six followers were killed in his ashram, four of whom allegedly sought to assassinate him. The incident was never fully explained.
  • OBITUARIES; SATHYA SAI BABA, 1926 - 2011; Spiritual leader to millions of Hindus Mark Magnier. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 25, 2011. pg. AA.1
• In 1993, several people were killed in a scuffle in his living quarters, apparently a conflict between devotees over who deserved closer proximity to his holy presence.
  • Obituary: Sri Sathya Sai Baba Amy Kazmin, Girija Shivakumar. FT.com. London: Apr 24, 2011.
• [Tanya ] Datta recounted an incident in 1993 in which four young male followers armed with knives had burst into Sai Baba's quarters and attacked his retainers, killing two and seriously injuring others. Sai Baba himself escaped down a back staircase. When the police arrived they shot all four attackers dead, claiming self-defence. Datta, and the former Home Secretary of the living god's state, Andhra Pradesh, seemed convinced that the police, in effect, executed the lads so they would never get the chance to explain why they wanted to kill Sai Baba in the first place. Well, other countries' armed response teams can be equally trigger-happy, but Datta was suggesting that the atmosphere in India could be very threatening to anyone who tried to damage Sai Baba's image.
  • Secret Swami was a gruesomely gripping film that raised some complicatedquestions about the Indian mystic Sai Baba; [Final 1 Edition] Paul Hoggart. The Times. London (UK): Jun 18, 2004. pg. 22
• Sunday's alleged attack on spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was not the first one reported in India. In 1993, four knife-wielding men were reportedly shot dead by the police in Puttaparthi. [..] Initial investigation indicated the attack was a result of infighting among the ashram inmates over a financial dispute. The attack was meant to teach a lesson to a few inmates, who were close to Sai Baba. The four assailants were stopped by Sai Baba's attendants. There was soon a struggle between the followers and the assailants in which two of Sai Baba's attendants were killed. Meanwhile, Sai Baba on hearing the commotion, escaped through a stairway at the rear of the bedroom, and raised an alarm. Armed policemen soon arrived at the scene. [..] Subsequent reports even suggested a rift between Sai Baba's brother Janaki Ram and the ashram administration that led to the attack. A trust member, Ram had then voiced his concern over the alleged strife within the Sathya Sai Institutions and Trust. The case was eventually dropped due to lack of evidence. A question that was widely raised was why the prime witness of the attack, Sathya Sai Baba, himself was not questioned for evidence. Sai Baba spoke about the attack a month after the incident. He attacked the media for carrying out baseless reports and attributed the attack to 'jealousy'. He dismissed all reports which termed the attack as an attempt on his life.
  • Sai Baba, an attack, 6 deaths & many questions; Four men were gunned down after they had barged into Baba's room Arunima Maji, Rahul Kaimal. DNA : Daily News & Analysis. Mumbai: Jun 01, 2010.
• Six people died in the tussle, two killed by the assailants and four shot dead at point-blank range by the local police, who had rushed to the Godman’s bedroom on hearing the shouts for help. Radhakrishna Menon, his personal driver, Sai Kumar Mahajan, a volunteer at Prashanti Nilayam, Baba’s spiritual headquarters, were killed when they attempted to stop the armed youths trying to enter Baba’s bedroom. The youths were identified as two students studying commerce in Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Studies — EK Suresh Kumar and K Sai Kumar — Suresh Shantaram Prabhu, a marine engineer, and N Jagannadh. They were shot by the local police, apparently in cold blood. Two more, Vijay Shantaram Prabhu and B Ravindra, who allegedly planned the attack managed to escape. They were nabbed near Nagpur after a month-long manhunt. [..] However, Baba cleared the cloud over the murder attempt. He went on to tell that there was no bid on his life. [..] There were allegations of a cover-up by the then Union home minister SB Chavan and the Andhra Pradesh government. The surviving assailants, meanwhile, told the investigators that they had no intention of killing Baba but to inform him about some trust members who wanted to usurp his powers. They said they wanted to inform this to him so that he could take the reigns from those fighting for supremacy.
  • Sathya Sai Baba escaped murder attempt Published: Monday, Apr 25, 2011, 0:20 IST By Madhusoodan M K

Place: Mumbai , Agency: DNA

Excerpts from sources.   Will Beback  talk  15:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it seems kind of notable and well cited and without consensus to remove so I have replaced a comment,Sathya Sai Baba#1993 assassination attempt - feel free to explain and assert consensus for removal here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Will BeBack and Off2riorob, I see what are you saying. Here's the other article I was talking about. 1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam.
• It was sensational news at that time. It was written in almost every newspaper and tabloid. I won't be surprised if you find more sources.
• The problem with this incident is that so many fringe theories about the incident. None of the published reliable sources indicated or reported Baba's involvement in this incident.
• At one point the above article was even proposed to be deleted and then the deletion board recommended that we clean and retain it.
• Various reliable sources which were published at that time did not clearly indicate Sathya Sai Baba's involvement in this incident.. That's the reason I am not sure why should it be placed in the biography?. It has a separate article dealing with it.

If interested please see the deletion discussions proposal and discussions here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam

Deletion Proposal and discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1993_Murders_in_Prashanthi_Nilayam

• I am ok with mentioning that there was an assasination attempt and Sai Baba escaped unharmed but other that it should not be emphasized as there was no indication from any of the published reliable sources of Sathya Sai Baba's involvement in this incident. This was also concluded in the earlier deletion discussion.
• Probably we can mention it very briefly in neutral terms in the initial life section. Response to Criticism is not the place for it.

Radiantenergy (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon that we don't know exactly what happened. We should just summarize what the most reliable sources say, even if they contradict each other. It may be unclear whether the subject was the target of an assassination attempt or was just there while his followers fought between themselves. All accounts seem to agree that from four to six of this followers died, some in the subject's bedroom. If there are any reliable sources with significantly different versions of events than already excerpted could someone please add those? I haven't searched on in but a 2010 source mentions a second assassination attempt that year.

In the meantime, let's put some text back. How about something like this:

• In a 1993 incident, four men armed with knives broke into Satya Sai Baba's bedroom in Prashanti Nilayam, either as an assassination attempt or as part of power struggle between his followers. Sai Baba managed to escape unharmed and raised an alarm. During the scuffle and police response the four assailants and two of Sai Baba's attendants, including his personal assistant, were killed. The official investigation left unanswered questions.

With the appropriate citations added, of course. It would go in the chronology of the subject's life. Is that acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a link to Main article is sufficient. Giving undue weightage to one incident is not right. I have to dig archive if you want more proofs of why it was opposed by other editors and later removed. I don't think we should give undue weight to this one incident which happened several decades ago at the time of his death. We are trying to write a NPOV article right instead of a sensational article. This is how probably Wikipedia lands in to legal battles. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked in the archives and couldn't find any significant discussion of "assassination". Maybe the discussion used other terms. As for the fact that this was several decades ago, I don't see how that's relevant. A biography typically includes material from the subject's entire life, not just the period immediately before their death. This event has been widely mentioned in the obituaries, and received even greater attention during the subject's life. Let's give the matter due weight, as represented in reliable secondary sources, which is what WP:NPOV requires. Any suggested revisions to the proposed text?   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try to pull it from archive. I may need some time. I have reworded it a bit to be more appropriate and less sensational. I would agree if we could add in the beginning of the section under "Criticism and Controversy". I don't think it needs a separate sub section as I said there'a already a dedicated article.

In a 1993 incident, four armed intruders entered his bedroom either as an assassination attempt or as part of power struggle between his followers. Sai Baba managed to escape unharmed. During the scuffle and police response the four assailants and two of Sai Baba's attendants were killed. The official investigation left unanswered questions. Radiantenergy (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. While I suppose an assassination attempt could be considered a form of criticism, I don't think that's the right section for it. It was an event in the subject's life so it belongs in the chronology of events. I'll go ahead and add it there with the agreed upon text and a few of the excerpted citations.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Am I looking in the wrong location? This content just appears to have been removed? Where is the agreement for that, all that is left is the link to the main article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten to it yet. I'm away from the computer for a couple of hours, and will add it when I get back unless someone beats me to it.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it with you, this article is under arbitration and I already have a couple of reverts. I support at the least the inclusion of small comment though and I don't see a consensus to remove so I was surprised to see it gone again. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's there now.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article is now linked from the front page, so in addition to the added interest caused by his death there will be significant curiosity about this article anyway.

Therefore, we need to do something about about the Criticism section, quickly. Normally articles with "orange level" tags can't be posted to the front page, but an exception is being made here, apparently.

Per: Wikipedia:Criticism sections, as much of the information currently in the criticism section should be integrated into other parts of the article. Of those that remain, anything unreferenced should simply be removed (or referenced, if possible). Whatever it takes to get rid of the tags ASAP, do it! Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive and controversial article which went through couple of arbitrations. Wikipedia article are not written to create sensataion and spread misinformation. Your suggestion does not make much sense. Please familiarize with the archive and arbitration discussions before proposing any change to the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh good, you're here (I was about to write on your talk page, but here is better). I just pulled each tag, with an explaination in the edit summaries. If there's something specific in the controversy section, please tag it individually. Let's actually resolve this stuff, rather than bickering about tags.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I didn't really provide an edit summary for the last edit. The point there is that the sentences following the inline tag seem, to me, to explain "investigation of the DD video", which is what was tagged. If there's still something wrong there, then let's create a section and discuss it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

About to look at above edits, but the recent death of the subject is referenced on the Wikipedia Main Page news column. It isn't exactly a link, and it will go away in the next day or so. This article has been the subject of enormous discussion and has been stable for some time (though it can certainly be improved.) The bundling of criticism into its own section is part of this. The sense of urgency to be resisted here is a product of recentism. There is and remains no deadline. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand, and agree with, the "no deadlines" principle. In terms of the article as a whole you're exactly correct. However, since this article is now linked form the main page (and a link form the ITN section is an extremely prominent link from the main page), policy states that it needs to be cleaned up (actually, policy states that it shouldn't be linked, but we seem to be making an exception in this case). Luckily, it appears to me as if you guys have already cleaned up the major issues, so I've removed the tags. I'm not at all familiar with the subject of this article, but everything is referenced, and there doesn't appear to be any seriously libelous information within the article. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohms law, Being new to this article you may not know the earlier discussions and archives. Don't remove the tags with out discussion it was added for reason. I will suggest you to look at archive discussions if you are interested in proposing any suggestions for this article. I don't want to repeat same discussions we had before for every new user who joins and want to propose sweeping changes to this article with out reading earlier discussions.

We don't want edit wars either. This article went through rounds of arbitration. Unreliable sources, fringe theories and other vandalism will not be tolerated. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has a deliberate way of being used to avoid it being misused as a long term "badge of shame" on sections. If a NPOV dispute exists, and is tagged, there should be an ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding the matter. If there is not the dispute is considered expired and the tag can go. The intention being to confer on participants a need to fix the issue, rather than end up leaving a tag to undermine the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No sweeping changes from me, I simply removed some (apparently) unneeded tags. If you want to re-add them for some specific reason, start a new discussion section and/or tag some stuff inline with "citation needed" or similar dispute tags, and then re-add the tags. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be relatively easy to fix, at least in the short term. I can re-jig various parts of the controversy section to fit into the rest of the article (I think, anyway) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, Don't make sweeping changes to this controversial article and rearrange sections with out discussion. The earlier organisation of the article which was made after several discussions with several editors made more sense. Your current edits and restructure does not make too much sense 15:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is on the main page, and has been noted on WP:AN/I. There is a level of urgency to correct anything that violates Wikipedia policy. My restructuring seems to make a lot of sense; the section was poorly written, badly structured and has the impression of being thrown together from thin air :D I am still considering what is best to do about the allegations left in the crticism section (at this point), I'll probably punt it to the BLP/N and see what they have to say... however usually we don't go into this much detail in terms of sexual allegations... still reviewing the sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, ErrantX.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, I strongly oppose your edits. Again I request you not to make sweeping changes. We don't want edit wars in this controversial article. I think it has a good structure. I have been one of the editors working here for years with several editors I don't agree with your personal views. Every line of this article and every section and sources has been discussed humpty number of times in BLP/N forums. If you are interested look at the old archive discussions. As I said before we cannot start same old discussions for every new user who wants sweeping changes to this article don't look at earlier discussions.Radiantenergy (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, a seperate criticism section is a non-starter, policy has changed over time and we now strongly avoid them. Why is there an issue with putting critcism of his miracles with discussion of his miracles? Per NPOV that is how it should be presented. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, I see what you are saying. As long as new unknown sources are not inserted in to the article and if we were only arranging the same content for better flow and presentation. I am OK. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine, I do plan (as you see below) to bring up any reference problems on talk rather than simply remove them (or I may just tag, depending on the problem). I realise it is a bit of an upheaval, but the NPOV and other dispute tags are there to say "there is a problem here, please fix it". So we should be fixing it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed used another user moved all the Criticism back to the original session now its repeated in 2 places. Can we rearrange it NPOV and lock the article to stop users from edit wars. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

He noticed the mistake and removed the duplicate (from the criticism section). I don't see an edit war - the article looks a lot better to me! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, there is a reason why the allegations of sexual abuse should be treated. First of all, it involves God Himself and the second reason is that the controversy really broke out in the year 2000 with a document called the Findings, compiled by David and Fay Bailey which detailed allegations of sexual abuse. A description of this document sourced to multiple reliable sources was in this article. Andries (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Andries, You know very well Baileys were deemed unreliable source in earlier mediation discussion. I don't understand why you are here inspite of being banned from the article by arbitration commitee. Don't keep pushing your personal agenda here because of your Conflict Of Interest with Sathya Sai Baba. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say that the document was not used directly as a source, but indirectly by multiple reliable sources that described the document. This was extensively discussed in mediation and found to be okay, as you know very well. Andries (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Andries, The Bailey document has nothing but libel and unreliable POV stories. It was never accepted as reliably sourced. I can provide you the mediation links. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's common, almost to the point of being a guarantee, for spiritual leaders to have some form of sexual misconduct allegations levelled at them. This would be.. probably the 5th such article I've come across in recent months. Balancing the verifiable information with the shit shovelling can prove difficult :S --Errant ^(chat!) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think right now the article looks balanced, cleanly organized, reliably sourced and well written. Lets leave it at that. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's much point bringing any problems to BLP/N. As has been said, we've dealt with them before. More to the point AFAIK the big concern was usually re: Sathya Sai Baba himself, not other people involved but clearly concerns regarding SSB are no longer really BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Every source in this article has been extensively discussed by several editors in the past in every possible wikipedia forum. This article has taken shape over the years. I can assure you its written well and reliably sourced as we had gone through several rounds of detailed discussion about every section mentioned in this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should make no exceptions. When an article is not neutral it should be balanced. Somehow the most vehement editions in this article ensure that the criticism section is kept to a minimum and it is obvious that flattery pervades even this section. Xufanc (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo issues

The image File:Sathya sai baba.jpg came from http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeokh/5650488495/ where it is attributed to The Associated Press "-- PHOTO: AP". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure of Wikipedia rules for using Photos. Are you saying we cannot use it as it violates wikipedia policy? Radiantenergy (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two accepted licenses on wikipedia, either the image is free – as in free for anyone to redistribute, according to the text under the edit window

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

or the image is considered fair use under United States copyright law – then the image must reside on the English wikipedia, not Wikimedia.commons, because of something... Nothing else can be used. I think that fair use might apply. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The file is nominated for deletion because the uploader by mistake gave an erroneous license/ownership and because its real license is unknown but most probably the commercial property of AP. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• If its attributed to associated press then our only reason to use it would be non free... in ten years no free image has turned up at wikipedia - is that a decent rationale for usage of a non free image in the infobox of a non living person... I think it could gain support in a low resolution non free image. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've dealt with NFCC but my impression a look at the archives suggests this is still the case that photos from press agencies and commercial photographers and the like are rarely allowed under NFCC (unless they are iconic or similar) since even at low res we tend to be competing with the people who own the copyright and usually licence them for a fee. Also while he's no longer a living person, his death was recent enough that I'm not convinced a image just to show what he looked like would be deemed irreplacable at the current time. It's not like he was a recluse. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not a recluse, but as far as I know it was forbidden to takes pics in the ashram or to film. Clearly skeptics could think of reason why this was forbidden. And before an interview you had to go thru a metal detector. Andries (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overseas appearance factual error

The article states: "On 29 June 1968, Sathya Sai Baba made his first and only trip overseas, to Uganda.[36][39] During a discourse in Nairobi, Sathya Sai Baba stated..." Nairobi is in Kenya, not Uganda. Suggest someone do a bit more research or change to 'first and only trip overseas to Uganda and Kenya' if both prove to be correct. 60.240.61.72 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See above. Patience. Rumiton (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussions; please do not add any more comments
Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba is physically alive and shall return to normalcy soon Normal human bodies can survive on 16 beats (or some units called 'Ankda's") per breath, anything below this can put the physical survival of the person in danger or almost extinct, but for bodies of divine beings, this requirement is only 4 beats or even less, to which any human can easily declare the body dead. There are no instruments that can measure this accurately so far and hence medical death of a divine being cannot be taken as a permanent occurrence. Hang on guys, Swami will be back in the same physical frame soon. And the catch to this is, even the authorities in Prashanti has just declared "Current state of Swami" - "Swami lies in state" as the media portrays it. Have faith in Him and hold on steadfast to it, let there not be even an iota of doubt in your mind & heart. These are testing times and as you know Swami always has His own ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.147.220 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I have heard some interesting rumors of such a stunt but we need Reliable sourcing and the alleged stunt to be completed. Any one can be die last time I checked its "coming back" is the key event in the sequence. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia does not predict the future --Javaweb (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb But be assured, as soon as he resurrects himself and a reputable source tells us about it, we will burst into print with a neutral, unbiased coverage of the subject. Rumiton (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NOT#FORUM. Most of us here are non-Sathya-Sai-Baba:ns, we're just editors of an encyclopedia, so whether he'll levitatingly and invisibly send all his blessing to the world – or not – is off-topical, and does not much to either encourage or discourage us. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I know humor is good and have no intentions to dissuade editors from using it. I'll just advice discretion on using humor on this talk page - and more so for this coming week. My view would have been to simply delete the comment that started this section... Irrespective, archiving for right now. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Obit reference

• LA Times <ref name= "LA Times">{{cite newspaper |title=Sathya Sai Baba, considered a living god by millions of Hindus, dies at 84 |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-sathya-sai-baba-20110425,0,2007584,full.story | date=April 24, 2011 | author=Mark Magnier | newspaper=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> --Javaweb (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Washington Post <ref name= "Washington Post">{{cite news |newspaper=Washington Post| date = April 21, 2011 | | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sai-baba-godman-in-critical-condition-how-will-he-be-remembered/2011/04/21/AFVkY4IE_blog.html |author=Elizabeth Flock |title=Sai Baba ‘godman’ in critical condition: How will he be remembered? }}</ref> --Javaweb (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Video showing how he performed tricks<ref name="tricks">{{cite video |title=Sai Baba Tricks Completely Exposed |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yblhsr1O4IQ}}</ref> Includes fair use segments from a BBC documentary.

--Javaweb (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• BBC Documentary <ref name="BBC"> {{cite video| title=The Secret Swami |url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5490623303921005152# |time=08:40}} </ref> Concerns about sex with teenage boys. --Javaweb (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I would advice new users to look in Archive and earlier BLP discussions before starting discussion or proposing changes. These are same old unreliable video sources which were removed as they were unreliable and had libel content. Videos were removed as per the recommendation in BLP forum discussion. Please remember its a controversial article which went through arbitration. Unreliable sources, fringe theories and sources pushing one sided POV with the intention of spreading libel about the subject are not acceptable. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The listed newspaper obits are certainly reliable. I see that the BBC video has been disputed, but i don't know where there was a consensus to treat it as an unreliable source which can't be used even with attribution. Could you please point to that thread?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through the archives and there were concerns of the use of materials generated by Mr. Baba's organization as well as those with first-hand experience with Mr. Baba since first-hand sources are avoided in Wikipedia for fear of bias and/or self-promotion. A BBC documentary broadcast throughout the UK is a reliable source, especially for showing the concerns of skeptics. The archives show concerns about 2 editors having a person interest in the topic. I have no such connections. --Javaweb (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Serious Issues with the Videos:

• The First You Tube Video was uploaded by user: WisdomFromWithin On Jan 11, 2009. Its from http://exposedsaibaba.blogspot.com/2009/05/expose-of-fraud.html. I dispute the reliability of this user video as well as this is a negative libel attack site on Sathya Sai Baba. I will like to remind that all negative attack sites on Sathya Sai Baba have libel content and are banned by the Arbitration Commitee.
• The Second Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5490623303921005152 from Sai Baba Exposed. It has the following description "One of the best videos, completely exposing all fake tricks of "sai baba". One of the best video exposing the fake tricks of sai baba... One such person who has been going around doing this is Mr. " Richard Wetmore" as can be evidenced by a google and related discussion on raionalist forums such as Randi's ]: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94757 (Another negative attack site on Sathya Sai Baba filled with POV and libels).
• I am against adding any kind of Videos either positive or negative in to the article. These Videos have one sided POV pushing titles, reliability is highly questionable.
• Sometimes its not really clear from a Video what's happening and POV titles pushes one sided biased view on the readers.
• This is not the first time there is disagreement about these negative Video. It was strongly opposed by other editors with very valid arguments some years back in the earlier discussion.

---

• No, I am still not convinced that there is merit for including the videos. I did a quick look at List of controversial issues/people very few, if any, have videos about the topics. I believe that adequately explaining each miracle (such as saying he supposed conjured a small amount of ash) would be much easier, and much less controversial, than adding videos. Thanks,Onopearls (t/c) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both videos are negative in nature and attempt to prove that the materializations are fake. These videos do not improve the article, they give the impression of fraud.(which seems to be your POV) which is fine, but its not other peoples POV. Its up to the individual readers to decide what they believe. If this videos are allowed then there can be no limit to videos posted because people won't let the negative videos go unanswered. I think there is more integrity to article without the videos.Sbs108 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Radiantenergy (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue with videos is not that they are biased or negative, but they are primary documents. We need a reliable secondary source to interpret them for us. Rumiton (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC Obituary

• "Obituary:Indian Guru Sai Baba". BBC. April 24, 2011. --Javaweb (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• This is not the only article from BBC. They had 4 more articles covering Sathya Sai Baba's funeral. One such article is this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13204914.
• The obituary article which you mentioned above is by Tanya Datta who documented the controversial documentary "Secret Swami'. We are still raging debates and battles about Tanya Datta's earlier allegation claims Of 'Alaya Rahm' in the BBC Secret Swami. These allegations were never proved to be true in the Superior Court of California. Her views seems openly biased, pushing her strong negative view of Sathya Sai Baba in this article. We are interested in writing more neutral and less sensational article. This article is not a good candidate from that perspective and will only add to more confusion.Radiantenergy (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Burial versus cremation

The text states that Indian holy men are buried not cremated, however, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was cremated at his funeral in Feb 2008. --BweeB (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can think of other spiritual leaders who were cremated as well. It seems to be optional. Rumiton (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then let's remove the text. --BweeB (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Death and Funeral

1. Though Prime Minister Dr Man Mohan Singh and other Ministers mentioned visited the Asram and paid their homage to Sathya Sai Baba's Body on April 26, 2011, they were not present during the funeral on April 27, 2011. Some of the dignitaries present during the funeral were : Shri L.K.Advani, Opposition Leader, Shri Venkiah Naidu, BJP Leader, Shri Kiran Kumar Reddy, CM of Andhra Pradesh, Shri B.S.Yeddyurappa, Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri E.S.L Narasimham, Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Shivraj Patil, former Union Home Minister and Governor of Punjab and Shri N.Chandra Babu Naidu, formert Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. This needs to be corrected.

2. What needs to be mentioned is that this was one of the few places where political leaders cutting across barriers of political affiliation, religion, caste, race etc congregated to pay homage to a person whom all of them revered equally. Political leaders beloging to parties as divergent as the Congress, the BJP, the DMK, and the Telugu Desam who can hardly agree on any ideological matter found a unity of purpose in the teachings of Shri Sathya Sai Baba.

3. Regarding his prediction of living upto 96 years, it needs to be pointed out that Sathya Sai Baba was not an astrologer who made predictions ; whenever his devotees expressed anxiety over his health or longevity, he used to assure them that he would live long.....he mentioned 96 years ; that ia all and this statement has to be seen in the light of a father figure not wishing to cause unnecessary worry or anxiety to his followers. From another angle, Prof K.Anil Kumar, a close disciple and translator of Sathya Sai Baba has clarified on "Mahaa TV", (available on Google but his voice is in the Telugu language) a Telugu Channel that Sathya Sai Baba had indeed completed 95 years and was in his 96th year as per the calendar based on Indian traditions. To elaborate, it needs to be pointed out that the Indian Panchanga or Calendar is based on 27 "Nakshatras" or stars which works out to 27 X 12 = 324 days per year. On April 23, 2011, Sathya Sai Baba completed 30834 days on earth which works out to 95 years (30780 days) and 2 months of 27 days each. Therefore, he has attained Maha Samadhi at the age of 96 years as predicted by him. These alternate viewpoints also need to be mentioned in the article as the present statement is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssankar2307 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have English language sources for this information? Rumiton (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry....I do not have an English language source for the information in (3) as of now. Regarding (1) and (2) these are appearing in several newspaper/media reports which I found in Google searches. Dear All, the English language source for details of "Naakshatra Year", ie a year comprising 324 days has been found in the following link : www.jyotishteachings.com/files/Division_of_Time.pdf In India, it is customary to celebrate one's birthday NOT on the calendar date but on the date of the respective Nakshatra (constellation, star). Wikipedia has a page on "Nakshatra". Based on this, IU request the editors to accept this and add this as an alternate viewpoint.

Secondly, the errors relating to Indian PM Sr Manmohan Singh attending the funeral (he did NOT, he went there on the day previous to the funeral) continue on the webpage. Any of the newspaper reports of April 27th which can be googled would substantiate this. Ssankar2307 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.52.54 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the Babb reference(page 166), it is clear he is talking about the same solar years that speakers in English or Telugu or Russian or Chinese refer to: "For the first sixteen years he engaged in playful pranks..." Also, he spent his last years in a wheelchair and had broken his hip so he did not live out his last years in youthful health as he said. His words speak for themselves. --Javaweb (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

True, I read dozens of his discourses and I always understood the years to be calendar years. There was no indication that he ever meant something else. Andries (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I understood from Robert Priddy's website that the never publicly said that he would live unto 96 (95 in Western counting) but that he publicly stated that he would live until 91 or 92. It does not matter so much, because it does not come close to his age. Babb simply reported popular beliefs among devotees and SSB only very rarely contradicted rumors. Andries (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sri Satya Sai Baba lived for 96 years

Sri Satya Sai Baba never said that his predictions are made in accordance with roman calendar. He always predicted in accordance with the Indian Traditional Lunar Calendar.

According to Nakshathara Kala Ganana method, a Lunar month comprises 27 days i.e 27 nakshathras. Then days of an year shall be counted as 324.

Sri Satya Sai Baba lived 30,834 days on this earth. He lived 95 years and 54 days in this mortal world according to the Traditional Indian Lunar Calendar. In addition to this, the pre-natal period in Mata Eshwaramma's womb was 9 months and 9 days, i.e, 284 days, which makes his age as 95 years and 338 days, which is almost 96 years.

Here's an incident which supports a fact that Sri Satya Sai Baba always followed the Lunar calender :

This incident, which took place in 1986, gives a precedent for Sri Satya Sai Baba using lunar years.

Ghandikota Aryama's grandfather was the late B. Sri Ghandikota Subrahmanya Sastry, a famous Sanskrit pandit and devotee of Swami, to whom the Sai Gayatri was revealed. When his grandfather attained nirvana in 1986, at the age of 93, Sri Satya Sai Baba came to their flat in Prasanthi Nilayam and stated that his grandfather was a maharishi and had reached the age of 100 years (even though he was 93). Later, Aryama asked his father, B. Sri Ghandikota Subba Rao, about the discrepancy. B. Sri Ghandikota Subba Rao said that Sri Satya Sai Baba uses the traditional Indian Lunar years, based on lunar months not adjusted for the solar years, in determining a person's lifespan.

27 days make a Lunar month. 12 lunar months make 1 lunar year. 100 such lunar years equaled 93 years for Aryama's grandfather.

Hence Sri Satya Sai Baba's prediction about his Samadhi is correct.

Plz write on my talk page if u question the veracity of what is written above. I will give the necessary evidence. This must be included in this article ! The truth must not be hidden from the eyes of people. Plz be neutral.

Sourav Mohanty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

As we keep saying, we need reputable, 2ndary, preferably English language sources for these statements. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here it is : http://sathyasai.org/swamihealth/swamiage.html Although the age calculated there is not correct, but the evidence given there is a reliable and reputable source for addition of the fact given by me on Sri Satya Sai Baba's age to the main article.

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly sathyasai.org is a reliable and reputable source from your point of view, but from the encyclopedia's viewpoint this is a primary source, not a secondary one. It is a source close to the subject which will present the subject's point of view, and can only be used with care for non-controversial issues. It is up to the editors here to decide whether this situation is one of these. See WP:NOR. Rumiton (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is no where wrong to accept the Hindu calender which says that a month has 27 days. And almost all the great saints from India use the Hindu calender, not the Roman calender.

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In some parts of the World as well as some sections of the society people do use different calendars. For instance in the Republic of Nepal the official calendar is the 'Vikram Samvat'. The Vikram Samvat calendar is 56.7 years ahead (in count) of the solar Gregorian calendar. In this particular case, since its published in the Oficial site and is believed by his followers some thing to that effect may be mentioned. "His followers believe that he fulfilled this prophecy as per the Hindu Lunar calendar". Radiantenergy (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet there were not masses worrying he was about to die until his health deteriorated so that is not what his followers believed while he was alive.

--Javaweb (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

SAI BABA PICTURE MISSING

In this topic if we have SAI BABA picture it will be good though already we have shridhi sai picture.Also we dont have to discourage any criticism unless and until its not properly footnoted by reliable sources.Sai Baba as per the belief and in the light of many of his works was a great social service person doing countless good things.At the same time if there is any counter opinion ,its should be welcomed ,then only the universal brotherhood,love and peace propagated by SAI movement will be fulfilled.Shankarr1977 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a problem with finding a picture of SB that is in the public domain. As to the rest of your post, if I understand it correctly, I agree with you. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could u plz say, why the picture of the Holy man is being deleted again and again ? I find a serious case of hostility towards this man who gave the message of love to the entire world. I request everybody to be neutral here. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you read what other editors write? There is a problem with copyright, and there is no need to get on a soapbox about it. Find us a photo in the public domain and we will put it in the article. Rumiton (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jain editorial

I removed a paragraph in the article that was sourced to an op-ed by Sandhya Jain. I can find no information indicating why this person is a reliable source, and there is reason to believe that they are not; this op-ed, also by Jain, makes the absurd statement that "America’s Black adult citizens don't have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do" (apparently she is unaware of the 15th Amendment). She seems to think that the right to vote is something guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act alone, a misconception debunked by Snopes two years before Jain penned her editorial. We normally shouldn't be citing newspaper op-eds for statements of fact, but especially not when the person writing has a known history of unreliability. *** Crotalus *** 18:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

She does seem to be something of a rabble rouser. Best avoided while better sources are available. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Crotalus, You are comparing Apples and Oranges comparing Sandhya Jain's different articles. Its like saying though NewYork Times is a reliable Newspaper but I am going to remove all references because in my opinion the editor made mistake in another article?. Your argument does not sound valid and convincing. In the article we have n't voiced Sandhya Jain opinions anywhere. We are only purely using as a secondary reference for the "Alaya Rahm Self Dismissed allegation lawsuit'.

Let us think and answer some simple questions

Does the Daily Pioneer mention the dismissed case?.

Yes.

Is Daily Pioneer a reliable Newspaper source?

Yes. Its used in several Wikipedia article as a source then why can't we use here?

Allegations are serious. Was there really an allegation lawsuit on Sai Baba and was it self dismissed?

Yes.

Public Court Documents of Alaya Rahm Self dismissed allegation lawsuit:

Links to Alaya Rahm's case from the Superior Court of California Website:

https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShopping/DisplayCaseInformation.do?caseNbr=05CC01931&caseYear=2006&source=case_src_dtl#top_page

Please press 'Accept the Terms' and press the 'Search' button. Then you will see the case.

If all this true why is there a pattern of repeated yearly attempt to get rid of this important dismissed case (which proved that Sathya Sai Baba was never found guilty of Alaya Rahm's allegations) from the article ? or why is the 'Alaya Rahm self dismissed lawsuit information' being suppressed?. I don't think source is the real problem here. There is more to this issue than just source and I am going to get to the bottom of this.

I will like to point to the new editors that Alaya Rahm case, BBC and the Daily Pioneer Sandhya Jain discussion has been brought back after a year inspite of humpty number of discussions. The BBC allegations, Sandhya Jain Pioneer were discussed already in Reliable Source Notice board in 2009 by independent wikipedians. The Conclusion was that if BBC allegation are used then Daily Pioneer article can be used as its reliably sourced by the public records from ALaya Rahm's case.

Recommendation from Reliable Source Notice Board must be Implemented.

• In the Earlier WP:RS discussion it was agreed that the Daily Pioneer - Sandhya Jain article was Reliably Sourced backed by actual Public records of Alaya Rahm Dismissed Lawsuit. The Two Independent outside Wikipedia RegentsPark and Priyanath agreed that we can use it. Priyanath stressed that as long as we use BBC presenting the 'allegation' we must also use "Daily Pioneer' mentioning the failed lawsuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question

Well, it should be taken to the BLP noticeboard because there is a line being drawn here between when allegations become notable enough to be included in a blp and when they should be excluded. That is a question that is not easy to answer here. My core responses are the same as before. Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

More Sandhya Jain Discusssions from Arcive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_15#Daily_Pioneer_covering_the_Alaya_Rahm_Trial

Final Comments:

• If BBC is used as a source for mentioning 'Alaya Rahm' allegation then the following Alaya Rahm Self dismissed Lawsuit showing the fact that Sathya Sai Baba was not found guilty of Alaya Rahm's allegations and that he cannot file another case aagain as per the ruling should also be mentioned.
• If not this will amount to hiding information, pushing one sided POV like the negative attack sided and purposely misguiding readers with wrong information.
• Instead of edit warring in this controversial article it will be more productive if we can think and arrive at a solution. Instead of suppressing the details of the case altogether we can think of extra backing the Pioneer article by adding reference from the public records of the court case as well as the "Alaya Rahm article' link from the Official Sathya Sai Baba website.
• We are trying to write NPOV article. Allegation are serious. Getting the article right is very important. Pushing misinformation about allegation inspite of knowing that the allegation failed when taken to Court is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Radiantenergy (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please not there that there is quite a long list of sexual abuse victims who have been reported under their real name in reliable sources, among others Michael Pender, Keith Ord, Hans de Kraker, Mark Roche. Alaya Rahm is just one of them. Also the BBC and other sources never retracted the Alaya Rahm case. The Daily Pioneer is a lone voice among the many reputable sources that have reported on this case. The BBC stated in their obituary that the sexual abuse allegations are the most damning. Andries (talk)

• There is a detailed article in wikipedia 'Criticising BBC reporting - its inaccuracies and misinformation'. BBC stories are not carved in stone. On many occasions they have retracted stories when they were forced to retract. Probably if there is a Class Action Suit on BBC by the Sathya Sai Organisation probably they may retract their stories.
• There are always fringe theories and make believe abuse allegation stories on the internet. As you very well know the negative attack sites on Sathya Sai Baba are filled with the libel stories of allegations as you mentioned above. In Wikipedia our goal should be to write a balanced NPOV article and not a biased negative POV pushing attack article on the subject.
• The differece between the other stories and "Alaya Rahm' is that this is the only allegation on Sathya Sai Baba which was taken to the Court of Law in US.
• I don't understand this BBC allegation are being projected as very important and is ofcourse covered in the article but why is there always an attempt to suppress the following allegation Court Case from the article?
• This Court Case is very important part related to the subject of the article "Sathya Sai Baba". Nobody is guilty unless proved in a Court Of Law. The Public records for Alaya Rahm case are available online and there by it does support the reference of 'Alaya Rahm' case mentioned in the Pioneer article.
• Suppression of this very important public case and its conclusions will not be tolerated. "Alaya Rahm" allegations have been mentioned in the article and hence this case also needs to be mentioned to give the correct information to the readers. Radiantenergy (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Radiantenergy. May I ask a couple of things? 1) Please try to be a little more concise in your posts and avoid repetition? It is very hard for busy people to wade through a long, repetitive post like the above. Really, when arguing a point, more is not better. 2) Please don't suggest, as you do above, that other editors are part of a conspiracy against the subject and trying to suppress exculpatory evidence, and that sources are not really the issue. I can assure you, in my case anyway, that sources are the WHOLE issue. I oppose the inclusion of Jain as a source because, frankly, she has shown herself to be an opinionated dingbat in the area of east-west cultural exchanges. We can't look at such a variable body of writing and cherry-pick ideas that suit us. OTOH, in the interest of balance and fairness I entirely support including the evidence that was removed. Just concisely give us some better sources (not primaries) and off we go. Rumiton (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Rumiton, It might be overwhelming for users who were n't involved in this before however let me put it this way there's no easy way to present all the discussions / reliable source reommendations which happened over 2 years related to this. Believe me, What I wrote will make perfect sense to the involved party.
• When this issue of Sandhya jain reference was taken to the Reliable Source notice board, very respected outside Wikipedians said that Sandhya Jain could be used as reference to back up 'Alaya Rahm's failed case' as long as we just mention the case with out presenting any opinions.:::::* See erlier WP:RS discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question

If I find other supporting documents other than Pioneer and Primary I would definitely add it but I don't find any right now. However this is a very important case to the subject and has to been included in the article as per the earlier WP:RS recommendation.

We do not use court documents as primary sources for cases involving living people (as far as I know, Alaya Rahm is still alive). If you want to incorporate this document into the article, you will need to find a reliable, third-party source that discusses it. Jain is not reliable because, quite frankly, she does not understand much of anything about the United States, as demonstrated by the outrageous blooper in the other article I linked. Whether she might or might not be a reliable source for matters solely related to India is a matter on which I take no position. But she's clearly not reliable on the US court system since she has demonstrated that she knows nothing about US law. *** Crotalus *** 15:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Crotalus, You cannot just delete reference which has been recommeded by WP:RS board just because you think the editor made mistake in another article. It does not make any sense. Did we remove BBC because there's so much 'Criticism about BBC'?. If you don't agree wih the source add tags till we find another source but you can't just get rid of the information altogether from the article.
• The article just mentions that such a case really took place and was self dismissed. We are not voicing any opinions there.
• Per the earlier Wp:RS recommendation from third party wikipedians, Sandhya Jain's reference to the case should be included or Per User:Jehochman's comments in the WP:RS BBC allegation regarding 'Alaya Rahm' should be removed altogether as the following Court Case made the Original source BBC's Alaya Rahm claims questionable.

Radiantenergy, you say above You cannot just delete reference which has been recommeded by WP:RS board. Please be more careful with statements like this. A thorough reading of that submission shows that no concensus was reached, and several editors suggested taking the question to the Living Biographies Noticeboard (which now is of course, moot.) Here are some of the opinions expressed by the RS Board.

Editor: A court trial is a primary source. We as Wikipedia editors are not competent to analyze what a court decision means. Was this court decision covered in any reliable secondary sources?

You: Other than the original court documents about 'Alaya Rahm's Case' and the daily Pioneer article dealing with the trial there are no other secondary sources.

Editor: The court case was dismissed at Alaya Rahm's request. AFAIK, that mean that no judgment was reached on the veracity of the charges, so it would be wrong to state that the allegations were "found to be not true".

Editor: I doubt that the Pioneer column is a reliable source for anything beyond the facts that a case was filed and a case was dismissed (for which the OC Superior court website suffices anyway).

Editor: ...at this board we should be clear that the Daily Pioneer column is not a reliable source for anything beyond the columnist's views.

Editor: The Daily Pioneer article you link to is a opinion column by Sandhya Jain and not a news report. As such, it is a reliable source only for the columnist's views and not for facts.

Editor: I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm.

Editor: We should remember that BLP applies not only to the subject of the article but also to other individuals, including Alaya Rahm.

Editor: As far as the BBC documentary goes; it is a reliable source, but how much weight it should be given in an article is best determined at the WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN board

Editor: The question is whether the Alaya Rahm accusations were one amongst many in the BBC documentary or were they central to the documentary?

You said: Alaya Rahm allegations was the central / core theme in the BBC documentory.

These comments show the RS Board acknowledging that this is a difficult and complex issue. It only muddies the waters when you suggest the issue has previously been resolved. Rumiton (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Rumiton, the discussion not being arranged by Date could cause some confusions. I was there during the discussion the flow of discussion and the thought process was very clear.
• This discussion went on for days by independent well respected wikipedians who are not involved in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• As you mentioned it indeed was a complex issue but in the end 2 independent Wikipedians said Sandhya Jain Could be used to mention about the case as we have the supporing public records of the Court Documents. I have added their comments below for clarity based on their date.

Comments by RegentsPark about using Sandhya Jain:

• Both the BBC documentary, as well as the court case are reliable provided they make clear statements. The daily pioneer article is likely reliable for asserting that the case was withdrawn, especially considering that you have the judgement as a source as well. So, what we have are allegations that have not been proved. Whether these allegations cross the notability threshold is probably better addressed on the BLP noticeboard where you'll get a much better idea of where the line should be drawn. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oddly, I hold the opposite view. I think the daily pioneer column is a reasonably reliable source for stating that the case was withdrawn by Rahm but that the columnists views (the hyperbole reference I made somewhere in the mess above or below) is not something that is includable in the article. I'm having second thoughts about the BBC documentary being reliable though. I haven't seen it but documentaries of this sort typically rely on story telling ("In 1972, a young John Doe arrived at the gates of the ashram ......", that sort of thing) and also do a good job of obfuscating on actionable matters ("was this young man's broken dream all in his mind or did something happen at the ashram?"). I seriously doubt that the documentary made outright accusations in the first place. Print sources are usually a better bet. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Comments added by Priyanath to this Issue:

• IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In the above discussion the other two sources are the "Court Documents" and "Sandhya Jain" article.

If you have any more questions please let me know. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I have questions, but I certainly have comments. By adding the heading "Final Comments" to the post by one editor, Priyanath, you appear to be trying to represent that editor's opinion, which they clearly label as such, ("IMO", "I don't think", "I think" etc) as a summation of what the other editors said. It is not. Clearly no consensus was ever reached on how these sources might be used and it is quite dishonest to imply that one was reached. All the observations which I have reproduced above need to be taken into account when considering how this matter should be dealt with. I am also not impressed by what I see as your attempts to impugn guilt to the plaintive, Rahm. "Pretty much the trial found Alaya Rahm guilty of making those false allegations." This is entirely wrong and probably libellous. According to the transcript, he brought a complaint against the SB Society for lack of due care, and for whatever reason, he later withdrew it. He was never on trial himself, so cannot be found guilty of anything. Similarly your statement that "with prejudice" (res judicata) applies internationally is problematic. This convention has enough trouble applying throughout the states of the US; in practice it would be impossible to apply it in countries that have entirely different laws and legal systems. I am sure that with goodwill and rigorous honesty we can produce something on this subject that is fair to all parties. Let's work towards that. Rumiton (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets first talk about this case based on the resources we have as we both are not on the same page. Then we will talk about the RS discussion. Here's why I don't agree with your statements.

• Just for argument sake lets say "Alaya Rahm case was dismissed "WITH OUT PREJUDICE" then in that case I would n't have even bothered to take this issue to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. But the Case was "Self Dismissed" with "PREJUDICE".

"What Is the Meaning of "Dismissed With Prejudice" under US Laws?

• Dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it.

• res judicata (rayz judy-cot-ah) n. Latin, the thing has been judged, meaning the issue before the court has already been decided by another court, with the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case before it as being useless.(From http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dismissed-with-prejudice/)

• A "dismissal without prejudice" is the more common ruling within the U.S. justice system. This guarantees the plaintiffs the right to refile charges in the future, when justified by new evidence or information. I will like to point though this was the more common ruling in this case "It was Self Dismissed With Prejudice".

• I wanted to show the scanned public records.
• Here's a scan document of the case. This is the only site I could find. This is only for our discussion and I have no plans of using it anywhere as it is from Pro-site.

http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-dismissal/

• Please see the part where it says "The Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his complaint, with Prejudice and the cross-complainant has agreed to dismiss his cross-complaint with Prejudice. No economic consideration has been paid in exchange for either of these dismissals.

• What was mentioned in the article is exactly what I mentioned above backed by secondary source 'Daily Pioneer' (Sandya Jain article) and public records. There is no extrapolation or opinions.

Regarding the RS discussion:

• I have read the full transcript of the BBC documentary it is one sided, pushing strong POV based on "Alaya Rahm's allegations" and projected Sathya Sai Baba as guilty based on his claims. It had a lot of Inflammatory remarks also.
• If we wanted to write a balanced article its only fair to say that along with BBC the failed lawsuit should also be mentioned with just the facts. Out Of the four Outside Wikipedians who participated the opposition to Daily Pioneer (Sandya Jain article) came only from User:Abecedare. Two Wikipedians RegentsPark and Priyanath did agree to use DailyPioneer as a reference with out the opinions. In the later part of the discussion before the case was closed their support for Daily Pioneer (Sandya Jain article) was not challenged any further by other outside wikipedians including User:Abecedare. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the BBC treatment was biased and sensationalised, and I deplore that kind of journalism, but we cannot and must not try to balance that by reading anything into the court records, where both parties agreed to self-dismiss their cases, not just Rahm. No one was found to be at fault, but no one was "absolved of blame" either. We must not present this as evidence that the allegations were unfounded, however much some editors might like to see that happen. The fact that User:Abecedare did not attempt to push his opinion is not relevant. He/she just presented it for consideration, which is how those discussions work. So we can use the Pioneer only as a source for verifying the court documents, and they say just that both parties simultaneously agreed to drop their litigation against each other. That is what we can say. Rumiton (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's still a lot to be discussed about this case. Give me a day or two to present more details about the case in all its perspective covering from different angles. Unless we understand it fully all its perspectives I don't think we can do much justice to the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You might be wasting your time. None of us is competent to draw conclusions from court records and we do not seem to have a reputable secondary source that can do it for us. So far, what we are able to say about this subject looks like being very limited. Rumiton (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not planning to use Court Records. Its still an important part of our discussion.

You got the first part of the case that it was self dismissed. That still does not answer many questions.

• Why was this high profile "Allegation Case Self Dismissed?"
• Why was this case "Dismissed With Prejudice" and not "With Out Prejudice" though that's how most cases are dismissed in general?
• Did the Official website of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation comment about this allegation case?
• Where there any defendents and other witnesses in this case?

I will be showing more court documents for our discussion to fill the above blanks.

• As per the Official Website and Pioneer, only during the legal proceedings Alaya Rahm's allegation claims were critically analyzed. In contrary to Alaya Rahm's claims "The plaintiff and his family had spoken at a number of Sathya Sai retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999 during the alleged abuse. These talks were recorded and found to contain no suggestion of wrongdoing and were enthusiastic praise of Baba". Please see the recorded talks in retreats in those years http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/1997-transcript.html (Again from a Pro-site I could not find it in any other site).

• They stated that the case was "Dismissed With Prejudice" because of the deposition of witness Mr. Kreydick. Who is Mr. Kreydick?
• Court Documents of Mr. Kreydick: http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-in-limine/motions1.html
• Please see the lines where it says "Mr. Kreydick arranged the itinerary and travelled with Plaintiff to India during 1995...". Under exhibit A it says Videotaped deposition of Lewis (Kryshna) Kreydick...

• It is stated that Mr. Kreydick testified that he had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Alaya Rahm from 1995 to 1997 during his alleged abuse. He also testified that Alaya Rahm reported no wrongdoings but only positive and enthusiastic experience with Sathya Sai Baba at that time. Alaya Rahm is said to have dismissed his case on the same day after Mr. Kreydick's deposition.
• If I find another secondary source with Mr. Kreydick deposition then we can use it. As I stated before the article only states what's needed just the facts and no opinions. The above discussion is to give you the full picture of the case rather than bits and pieces. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.249.68.50, 4 May 2011

Under the section 'Old age, illness, and death' it is written that Sathya Sai Baba would leave till 96 however the predictions came to be wrong. This statement is completely wrong. Being Hindu spiritual leader he has lived for 96 years 4 months as per Hindu calender (Lunar Calendar). All of Hindu festivals (except Sankranthi) and events follow this calendar and not the solar calendar. Request you to change this view from your sheet as it is very limitied and biosed from solar calendar

115.249.68.50 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could add both - moon years and sun years? What do others think? --BweeB (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the above editor can provide a reference for SB's "lunar" age, then we can add it. --BweeB (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just a "reference", but a reliable secondary source. The Sai Baba Society is definitely not in that category. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of this article and another

User:Naresh.neelakantan today added a paragraph to the Kirlian photography article claiming that the subject of this article when viewed by a writer known as "Professor Baranowski" through an "ultra-sensitive Kirlian camera" was shown to have a particular "aura". Even if this source was accepted as reliable, the ref in no way supports this claim. The experience the writer mentions was entirely personal, and no Kirlian photography was involved. The same editor has now added the same specious claim here, referring to his own bogus edit as evidence. This is vandalism, and will get the editor blocked if he/she does it again. If you care about the reputation of the subject of this article, please stop telling lies about him. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Different viewpoints on Sathya Sai Baba's age at the time of his death

Dear Editors,

In the section "Death and Funeral", it is mentioned that though he predicted that he would live for 96 years, he died earlier. This is a serious accusation against a person no longer alive.

1. This prediction is NOT documented. How can a reputed site like Wikipedia accept such an undocumented accusation ? 2. Alternate viewpoints on this topic are not mentioned. How can a biased statement be included without alternate viewpoints ?

If you want to retain this accusation, kindly add the following to balance the section and bring into fore the alternate view points also :

There is a raging controversy going on between supporters and opponents of Sri Sathya Sai Baba as to whether he failed to live up to his own prediction that he would lead a healthy life for 96 years.

This “prediction” is based on a Discourse given by the Baba on October 5, 2003 in which he said : “As a matter of fact, there is no trace of ill-health in Me. I am always healthy. Not only today, till 96 years I will be like this. I can do whatever I want. But those who go by the physical form think that Swami is ageing. Youth and old age are related to the body and not to Me. I am always the same”.

Source : http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume36/sss36-14.pdf There are earlier Discourses of the Baba in 1960 and 1961 in which he is quoted as saying that he would live for 92 years. However as there were no tape recordings of these Discourses and as these were published based on the notes compiled by the late Prof N.Kasturi, his translator, errors of compilation cannot be ruled out in these and hence we shall go by the Discourse cited above of which proper tape/video recordings are reported to be available. Devotees of the Baba would claim that the references to age made by the Baba are metaphysical in nature, while opponents claim that passing away at 85 years is the surest sign of lack of divinity in him. His supporters have been coming up with explanations and justifications that he meant 96 lunar years and so on. An unbiased, objective and un-emotional analysis of the situation reveals the following : Indian or Hindu Astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology) is based on the time of birth which in turn is based on the concept of birth-star prevailing at that time. These birth-stars are called “Nakshatras” and a webpage is available on Wikipedia giving more information about Nakshatras. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakshatra). Wikipedia states that “Hindu astrology includes several nuanced sub-systems of interpretation and prediction with elements not found in Hellenistic astrology, such as its system of lunar mansions (nakshatras)”. In other words, Nakshatra or birth-star is a crucial ingredient in all predictions as per Hindu Astrology. Measurement of time and for that matter, any measurement, varies from place to place. If it is inches in the UK, it is centimeters in Europe and so on. Indian tradition has several such units for measuring time. The details can be had in the website http://www.jyotishteachings.com/files/Division_of_Time.pdf. One of the measures of time mentioned therein is the “Naakshatra Year” which has 12 months comprising 27 days each (one for each birth-star) which works out to 324 days. (loosely translated as “sidereal year”). 9 is a very holy and divine number for Hindus with a lot of spiritual significance. 324 days means 3+2+4=9 as the cycle of 27 (2+7=9) Nakshatras or birth-stars repeating themselves 12 times (27 X 12 = 324).

An exhaustive calculation on Excel by physically counting the number of days in which Sri Sathya Sai Baba lived shows that he lived for 30,834 full days from November 23, 1926 to April 23, 2011. (3+0+8+3+4=18 ; 1+8=9). Lets remember that the Millenium Year 2000 had 367 days which used to be called Y2K problem. If we divide 30,834 by 324, the number of days in a Naakshatra Year, it works out exactly to 95 Naakshatra years plus 2 Naakshatra months of 27 days each - 54 days (5+4=9). In other words, Sri Sathya Sai Baba indeed shed His Physical frame in His 96th Naakshatra year as predicted by Him. We also know that Sri Sathya Sai Baba, though on a wheelchair, was otherwise in good mental health till March 27, 2011 as he was admitted to the hospital on March 28, 2011. The period from November 23, 1926 to March 27, 2011 works out to 30807 days (3+0+8+7=18, 1+8=9, again) which is also 95 Naakshatra years plus one Naakshatra month of 27 days - ie, in His 96th year. So, His words that he would be healthy till His 96 years were also fulfilled.

Now critics will ask the question why Naakshatra year is being raked up now while Sai Baba never used it earlier. Festivals like Onam were indeed celebrated by Sri Sathya Sai Baba based on the stars like Thiru Onam. Other Festivals like Mahasivaratri, Dasara etc are indeed celebrated all over India including by Sri Sathya Sai Baba based on the Indian Almanac only. Therefore the reference to Nakshatras which are an important part of the Indian Almanac is nothing new.

Thanks, ssankar2307 Ssankar2307 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is documented. There is a reference in the article that you can see online if you tried.

And there is more. Shortly before his death From "Don't believe in rumours on Sai's health: Devotees to people". zeenews. April 21, 2011. {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.zeenews.com/news701437.html" ignored (help)

In a joint press conference organised by Sri Sathya Sai Baba Devotees forum here today, prominent devotees urged people not to believe in rumours on Sai Baba's health and reports in a section of press on Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust.

... The devotees claimed that Sathya Sai Baba, whose health condition is very critical, will recover from the present illness and live till 96 years.

Some of the devotees include eminent personalities like former Justice of Karnataka High Court J Eswar Prasad, Andhra Pradesh ex-DGP R Prabhakar Rao and cardiac surgeon Dr Anil Kumar Mulpur.

"Sai Baba is an incarnation of God. He will definitely recover and live for 97 years as he himself had once predicted," former state DGP R Prabhakar Rao said.

Another devotee M V Rao, an eminent agricultural scientist and former vice-chancellor of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, said he too believed that Sathya Sai Baba come out of the present illness and live for 96 years.

"Though as a scientist I see everything scientifically, the power of Baba and his extraordinary social work impressed me," he said.

Still waiting for RS written before he became decrepit that proves his followers believed he would die at 84. Anything after he died could be someone making stuff up to match the now-known fact he died at 84. --Javaweb (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Dear Editors/Javaweb, I am sorry to say that you seem to be prejudiced. We are also confusing issues. Kindly reconsider your stand :

1. Shri Sathya Sai Baba was not even a matriculate and he gave all his speeches in the Telugu language, an Indian language. There is no written documentary evidence of his "prediction" that he will live for 96 years ; what we have is the English translation of the transcript of a speech he gave on October 5, 2003. How on earth should we expect that a non-matriculate person who speaks in Telugu would refer to the Gregorian calendar and related measurements of time. Reason and logic dictate that he referred to the Indian calendar only.

2. Earlier, Rumiton said that a secondary source is required and aspersions were cast on the reliability of the Sai Baba Society in this regard. Here, when I give secondary sources unconnected with the Sai Baba Society and also references to Wikipedia itself, Javaweb wants a prediction by his followers that he would die at 84 written before his death ! Is this not prejudice at its purest ?

3. Here again, are we going by the Baba's prediction or his follower's prediction ? Also regarding the followers reiterating that he will live upto 96, who are these followers, are they part of the Sai Baba society, were they authorised by the Baba or the Society to make these statements ? There were any number of people in India claiming either that he will live till 96 (supporters) and that he will die (opponents). These kep appearing on the web. Many claimed he was already dead even before his death was formally announced ! Why choosea press statement by a few followers to the xclusion of the others ?

4. Also the reference cited (45-Bobb) quotes Sai Baba as saying his body will remain young while the main article states that he failed to live up to his prediction that he will be healthy because he used a wheelchair ! What is the issue here - body remaining young or his remaining healthy ? If a person with a young body uses a wheelchair, does it make him old ? Sri Sathya Sai Baba's body, as revealed in various photographs on the Net, did remain young without a single grey hair or wrinkle till his death. You have conveniently forgotten to mention this. Also in the October 5, 2003 speech referred to by me, he states that "I am healthy and will remain like this" after a steel rod was inserted in his body during surgery and after he became unable to walk. Its obvious that his concept of health is different from what we usually perceive it to be. The wavelength in which he talks is obviously different.

5. The Edit Request was certainly not to give a one-sided point of view. I dont want that. Let all points of view be given. But if the main article refers to his prediction and his alleged failure to live up to it, its only fair that the other points of view, if any are also given. Otherwise, fairness would demand that you delete the lines relating to the alleged failure of the prediction also.

Dear Sirs, Sri Sathya Sai Baba is an Indian holy man and to understand an Indian holy man, you need to equip yourselves with a thorough knowledge of the metaphysical, metaphoric andf figurative elements of speech usually used in the Orient (Tagore : Gitanjali, Mirdad, why even Lord Jesus in the Bible etc). Otherwise you should admit that you are looking at the whole thing through a Western microscope. You need not certainly agree with all that his followers say ; if it is exaggerated or not factual, you must certainly say so. But you give so much importance to words uttered by Baba-baiters....but you push under the carpet who they are, what is their contribution to society other than Baba-bashing, what humanity has received from them except tons of Baba hatred and in what way this Baba-bashing has helped humanity.

You can do what you want ; you are the bosses...but on this subject, YOU ARE NOT FAIR. This is one of the most biased articles in Wikipedia. And millions will agree with me. If there is a provision for that, please do mention somewhere in the top that there are some who dispute the fairness of this article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssankar2307 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a "disputed neutrality" tag to the article. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This article includes this picture:Amarnath K. Menon (April 25, 2011). "Up in the Heir". India Today.. He looks like someone in a nursing home. As far as his hair, neither you nor I know if he dyed his hair black or wore a wig. --Javaweb (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I believe most sources would have been more impressed if Sai Baba followers had announced three months ago that the 96 lunar years were up and he would pass away soon. Rumiton (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding reputable sources, please note that no "aspersions" are being cast on the Sai Baba Society, but it is a primary source...one closely connected with the subject, and which can be expected to write from the subject's point of view. And Wikipedia is not a reputable source either. It is a work in constant progress, where anything might appear and disappear at any time. We are looking for 2ndary sources; academic papers, respected TV documentaries, high quality newspaper and magazine articles etc. Sources with a reputation for fact checking; reputations that they will lose if they get things wrong. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs/Madams,

Thanks for this nice clarification and for admitting that Wikepedia itself is not reliable.

The point which I am trying to make is this : Here is an Indian Guru, Sathya Sai Baba and all Indian holy men are known to talk in metaphors and figures of speecch. He says he will live up to 96 years. His followers understand this as 96 Gregorian calendar years. True, none of them has spoken of lunar years or Naakshatra years before his death. On the other hand, a few of them, including educated social leaders, go to the extent of calling a press conference in Hyderabad to state in public that he will live for 12 more years, which you ahve quoted....were these followers authorized to talk on behalf of the Baba ? Were they having thorough inner knowledge ? Did anyone ask the Baba to clarify the nature of the years when he was alive ? Well, really we have no reason to believe so. After his death, there is an attempt to understand why this happened....the followers who know of his metaphoric way of speaking, stumble upon the Naakshatra years which perfectly fit into 96. This is one interpretaion. Well, it can be questioned, disputed. I am NOT asking you to say that this is right. All I have been aksing you is that if you accuse Sathya Sai Baba in the article of not living up to his prediction, then you also have a duty to be fair and state that there are also some who interpret the prediction in a different way. Let the diserning Netizen decide whether which is right and whether this a subsequent cover-up. Otherwise, please dont allow the line accusing him of belying the prediction, thats all.

All soothsayers' sayings, predictions, oracles......these have historically been based on puns, quibbles, metaphors and difficult to understand or interpret beforehand.....You may recall the prediction of the second apparition in "Macbeth" - "The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth"(Act IV, Scene 1, Lines 80-81). When Macbeth did raise this just before his death at the hands of Macduff, it is revealed that "Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother's womb.....untimely ripp'd" ie he was taken out of his mother's womb by Caesarian section. (Act V, Scene 8, Lines 15-16). Can we now raise the question why none of Macbeth's followers made this prediction before Macbeth went to the war with Macduff ?

You have raised the question whether any of his Sathya Sai Baba's predicted he will follow lunar years when he was alive. Do you really expect the disciple of a holy man to say when he is alive that he will die sooner than expected ? Would Saints Mark, John, Matthew or Luke said this of Jesus when he was alive even if they knew it.....

Regarding secondary sources, if you go through the newspaper reports during the Baba's illness as appearing on the Web, there are a number of them claiming that Mr Venu Srinivasan of TVS Group (a reputed industrial Group in India) is a Trustee of the Sathya Sai Central Trust and that he briefed reporters etc. Incidentally, Mr Venu Srinivasan is NOT a member o115.241.209.235 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)f this Trust and the person who briefed the media is Mr V.Srinivasan, another industrialist and Trustee of the Sai Trust. So much for the reliability of the so-called secondary sources.

Therefore, my request is simple : There are some who believe that Sathya Sai Baba did not live up to his prediction that he will live upto 96 years. There are also many who believe that Sathya Sai Baba was a holy man who spoke in puns, quibbles and metaphors and many of his devotees now believe that he was referring to 96 Naakshatra years (these are roughly translated as sidereal years....NOT lunar years)and that he had fulfilled the prophecy. Indian predictive astrology does derive its basis from Nakshatras or birth stars from which the concept of Naakshatra years is derived. In other words the statement in the article that he did not fulfil the prophecy is just an accusation and needs to be balanced with the other side also. I once again request you to consider this change.

Thanks & Regards, once again. 115.241.209.235 (talk) 10:, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the sources used for an article must be reliable. It is up to us to make them so. We cannot read everything on the web and decide what needs to be included, and we cannot include all of them to make sure it all gets in. We need reliable 2ndary sources to tell us about these things. Rumiton (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, the request seems straightforward enough; it is very easy to add just a line that his followers believe the prediction came true by interpreting it as 96 Nakshatra years, with a link to a newspaper article. I don't see any objections to that, it is just describing the beliefs.Satrughna (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that tells us that? Do you see the problem? The shorter year interpretation is posthumous. Nobody thought that way before he died, and to many people it looks like revisionism or sophistry. Newspaper articles are not good sources for contentious subjects. A link to a newspaper article supporting this will invite a link to an opposing newspaper article, which mocks the belief. If we refer to this at all, we will need to phrase it very carefully. Personally I think any reference to this subject will be challenged and thrown out as original research which has been the curse of this article up to now. But I agree we need to do something. I will try for something neutral tonight. Rumiton (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're of course right as far as original research is concerned. But we don't have to prove whether Baba's follower's are right in this or not, I just meant that it is possible to describe the fenomenon of people interpreting his age afterwards as 96, by following a lunar calendar. You don't have to state that this is correct or not, just state that people like to see it this way in order to make the prediction come true. In this way you describe the reaction of the followers, not the prediction itself, and leave any conclusions to the reader. There is no valadation necessary in this way. Thanks for your consideration and thoroughness, Satrughna (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to do that a few hours ago. Take a look. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton, Javaweb, Satrughna and all others who supported my reasonable request,

Thanks a ton for the edit and my heartfelt gratitude to all of you.

My only request is....the whole issue is not with lunar years but "Naakshatra years", roughly translated as "sidfulereal years" which is a concept peculiar to India. Nakshatra or birth-star is a concept with which we Indians are familiar and use in our daily lives ; therefor, though I too thought that this was a bluff initially, what stunned me was the arithmetical matching of the years, days etc especially revolving around the number 9 which is special to Hindus when I actually analyzed it. The arithmetical cyclicality was simply interesting. But obviously, I have failed to make you all understand the concept of sidereal year and if you could please let me know how to, I would like to send by mail/upload one pdf and one excel file which will make it clear that lunar and sidereal years are different. Please let me know how to upload/send this mail. This would make the change meaningful ; otherwise someone is sure to come up and say that lunar years dont count up to 96 !

Anyway, hearfelt thanks once again.Ssankar2307 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

According to this article the sidereal year is slightly longer than the solar year. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to figure the difference between lunar and sidereal years (Naakshatra Years) referred above. During my search I came across this link which seems to explain Sathya Sai Baba's passing based on "Nakshatra Years" or sidereal years. http://www.andhraheadlines.com/state/baba-was-96-when-he-died%E2%80%A6-4-82671.html. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That does not look like a very reputable source to me, and neither do sources like this one which claim that a Nakshatra Year is not the sum of 12 lunar months, and is about 360 days long. We need good sources here, preferably more than 3 weeks old. Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Age at death

If editors will be patient a while longer we will try to arrive at a more neutral way of covering this subject. Of course, any editor is welcome to continue the discussion on the subject here. Rumiton (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of effort is going into the "allegations" section at the moment, and as that is part of a living biography, it must take precedence. Rumiton (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some sources:

• The hopes of devotees who believed Sathya Sai Baba would live for 96 years, as he had predicted, came crashing down on Sunday when doctors announced he had died while undergoing treatment. But there were also those who said he would come back. Sai Baba died at the age of 85 but some devotees still believe he will return to prove himself right while others claim he lived for 96 years as per the lunar calendar. "He lived for a full 96 years," said devotee Anil Kumar, while claiming that Sai Baba had once appeared over the moon. The devotee was referring to an incident four years ago when word spread among Sai Baba's followers at Puttaparthi that he would make a 'moon appearance'. However, they did not see anything as a cloud cover hid the moon. "I am sure he will come back. He is the embodiment of God and there is no death for him," said Eswaramma, a devotee in Visakhapatnam. [..] Even when the doctors had termed his condition critical, his devotees, including former judges, police officers and even doctors, kept faith that he would recover and live for 96 years as he had predicted on several occasions. Not ready to believe that Sai Baba is no more, the ardent devotees say he is in 'yoga nidra' or a state of sleep. [..] The devotees also believe Sai Baba's word that he will be reborn as Prema Sai Baba in the Mandya district of Karnataka. Sai Baba as a teenager had claimed to be a reincarnation of the famous Shirdi Sai Baba, who had reportedly stated before his death in 1918 that he would reappear in the then Madras Presidency eight years later.
  • Baba in 'deep sleep' will return - devotees; Mohammed Shafeeq. Post. Durban: Apr 27, 2011. pg. 4
• "Baba promised us that he would be with us till 2022. How could he leave like this?" said Jamuna Bai, 48. [..] The hopes of devotees like Bai had come crashing down on Sunday morning when Sai Baba died after battling for life for 28 days. But others claimed Baba had really lived for 96 years as per the lunar calendar. [..] "He is not dead, he will come back to life in three days," insisted a foreign devotee. Others said the Sai Baba is in "yoga nidra", a meditation akin to sleep. "There is no death for incarnations of God," said R Prabhakar Rao, former police chief of Andhra Pradesh and a staunch devotee. "That is why people go to dargahs and samadhis to pray. They may not be there physically, but pilgrims believe they are alive and will help them. The Swami will continue to help us even in yoga nidra, and people will continue to visit Puttaparthi to seek help." "There were suggestions that the body should not be embalmed as he might wake up from his sleep any time," said LV Subrahmanyam, principal secretary (finance) of Andhra Pradesh government. [..] "I am sure he will return. He is the embodiment of God," said Eswaramma, a devotee from Visakhapatnam.
  • Baba will return, say devotees The Hindustan Times. New Delhi: Apr 25, 2011.

There are many more sources which report on the general issue of the prediction of a 96-year life, but these are the only ones I can find which mention the lunar year angle. The prediction of a reincanration, resurrection or re-awakening might be worth adding too.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Will. They don't seem to be the best quality sources, but at least they are 2ndaries and seem neutral. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Before death, did the leader celebrate his "lunar birthday"? Did his followers? Were they concerned when he "turned 90", he might die in a few years? WP:RS? --Javaweb

At this stage, the answer to those questions seems to be, No. Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, his birthday was always celebrated on the 23rd November as the article Sathya Sai Baba movement states with a reputable reference (Bowen Univesity of Leeds). I wrote that there years ago. Is it intellectually dishonest (sophistry) to state now that SSB meant lunar years? Your or my opinion do not matter: reputable sources are the only thing that count in Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are lunar months but I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "lunar year". Nonetheless, his followers are asserting this so it's appropriate to report it in a neutral manner.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Responses to criticism section

It seems to me that this section carries allegations against a living person or persons that are not supported by reputable sources. We need to address this situation with urgency. If no one else attempts this, I will try tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Which part or statement in this section are you concerned about? We can dicuss more on this if you specify whats your concern Radiantenergy (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Alaya Rahm is a living person, so the constrictions applied to Biographies of Living persons apply. I find a great deal of innuendo against him in this section.

As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California but withdrew his lawsuit on 7 April 2006 after indications that his challenge lacked merit. The case was dismissed 'with prejudice', meaning it cannot be filed for the same claims again. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to Alaya Rahm.[137][138]The Pioneer article also stated that neither Sathya Sai Baba, nor any organizations associated with him, have been charged or convicted with sexual abuse or any other crime in a court of law."[137]

During an interview with Asian Voice magazine Ashok Bhagani, a trustee of the Sai Organization in the UK, said that the allegations in the Secret Swami documentary were baseless. Bhagani said that devotees never meet Sai Baba alone.

What were the "indications that his challenge lacked merit"? Who was the source for this?

Was the case "dismissed?" The implication in this expression is that the court heard the evidence and threw it out. As I read it, both his case against the Sai Baba Society for failure to comply with their duty of care, and the counter case by them against him were "self dismissed", which means they both agreed not to pursue their claims any further. We are not told why, and we should not speculate. "With prejudice" is just legal jargon that indicates that both parties agreed to drop their claims, and not to bring this particular issue (Duty of Care) back to the court again. It is not a value judgement on the evidence.

The issue of monetary payment to cease litigation could apply both ways. Neither did Rahm apparently pay the SBS to cease their litigation against him.

The issue of Sai Baba being alone with devotees appears to be contradicted by the statement made by the confidant of Rahm's, who stated that Rahm said at the time that SB sat the 16 year-old on his knee and kissed him on the mouth during a private interview. Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments below:

You asked "What were the "indications that his challenge lacked merit"? Who was the source for this?

If his challenge had merit then why was the case "Self Dismissed With Prejudice" - meaning "The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim again. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment. Res judicata (rayz judy-cot-ah) n. Latin, the thing has been judged, the court dismisses the case before it as being useless. It could be argued that if they had found any merit in 'Alaya Rahm's" case then "Alaya Rahm" / the plaintiffs will be guaranteed the right to refile charges in the future, when justified by new evidence or information as per "With Out Prejudice" judgement, which did n't happen in this case.

I think we have examined this issue enough in the following paragraphs, but to say again: You are confusing dismissal with prejudice (where a court examines the evidence for a claim and decides it is not strong enough and should not be re-presented) with self dismissal with prejudice (where a plaintiff looks at his own situation and himself decides, for a whole library full of possible legal reasons, that he should not continue with his case.) Nothing should be inferred from this about the former plaintive or his evidence. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked Was the case "dismissed?" The implication in this expression is that the court heard the evidence and threw it out....

We can correct the statement to say that the Case was 'Self Dismissed with Prejudice'. Once the Plaintiff dropped his case the counter case was also dropped. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to either to these dismissals.

I will use bold, just to make my replies stand out. That is better, but not quite there. The Sai Baba Society did not self-dismiss its case after Rahm did. They did so at the same time, on the same form. They both agreed that they would not take up further court time by filing against each other on these issues. This was clearly a condition imposed by the court in allowing self-dismissal. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked "The issue of Sai Baba being alone with devotees appears to be contradicted by the statement made by the confidant of Rahm's, who stated that Rahm said at the time that SB sat the 16 year-old on his knee and kissed him on the mouth during a private interview"?

Alaya Rahm's claims before and after the allegations are still being debated. As I pointed out earlier Alaya Rahm had alleged abuse during his India trips between 1995 - 1999. But in contrary, Alaya Rahm and his family had spoken very enthusiastically about Sathya Sai Baba in a number of Sathya Sai Retreats arranged during the same years between (1995 - 1999) in US. These were publically recorded speeches. Also, 10 days before his actual case Alaya Rahm "Self Dismissed" his own case after his past friend and confident Mr.Kreydick deposition was made against his case. If he had a solid case or he was sure he would win why will he self dismiss his case? With all this in mind I don't think we should take Alaya Rahm's claims as a golden standard for any conclusion.

The fact that he expressed love for SSB as a youth is not very relevant. What counts is how he felt looking back from an adult perspective. We don't know why he self-dismissed his case, but I have read several plausible explanations, none of them from reputable sources. It is speculation to assume that Kreydick's deposition had anything to do with his withdrawal. The mutual self-dismissal negotiations must have been going on for some days at least before this deposition was made. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Kreydick was Alaya Rahm close friend at that time with whom Alaya Rahm shared everything including his relationships with girls and other personal things which he never even mentioned to his parents. I think Kreydick deposition indeed played a big part in this case self dismissal. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is what you think, but we don't have any evidence to support it. It is really just speculation. Rumiton (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Another crucial point is that the purpose of this inquiry was never to determine whether abuse actually happened, it only asked whether the Sai Baba Society enabled a minor to travel to India and place himself in a situation where abuse could happen. It seems clear that they did not; Mr Kreydick has stated that he personally paid the boy's fare, not the SBS. This is the critical part of his deposition; the references to Rahm's happy demeanor and so forth are red herrings. Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You said that "purpose of this inquiry was never to determine whether abuse actually happened, it only asked whether the Sai Baba Society enabled a minor to travel to India and place himself in a situation where abuse could happen"

I am surprised at your above comments - How did you come with this interpretation and why are so sure that the inquiry was not about determing the alleged abuse? Mr.Kreydick is produced as a witness on behalf of the defendent and nothing of the above sort is mentioned in his deposition. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been so much misinformation and so many half-truths spread about this case that it takes a lot of effort to define the real issues, but it seems clear to me that this is exactly and only what it was about. It seems to me it might have been a preliminary to a subpoena to be issued to the defendant (Sai Baba) at a later date, where he would have been called to answer the allegations of abuse. (No one can be tried for misbehavior without being called as a witness in their own defence.) See http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-in-limine/motions1.html Particularly note the statement, Accordingly, his [Kreydick's] deposition testimony is relevant to the issues in this case; namely whether the Society bears any liability for encouraging, financing or organising the expedition to India during which the plaintiff claims to have been sexually molested by Sai Baba. Kreydick has stated that all the expenses were born by him and him alone, and presumably bank records support his statement, so the case against the SBS ceases to exist. If you have evidence that there were other issues being brought by Rahm in this or other simultaneous cases, please supply them. I have not been able to access the full Orange County Court records, so I may be missing something important. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was the only reason. Its going to be take me a couple of days to look through it and give you something which we can discuss. Radiantenergy (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I may be giving too much detail but as I said before there's no easier way than looking at all the details. In the Factual summary - http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-in-limine/motions1.html summarise the reason for the case "This case arises out of Personal Injuries that Plaintiff Alaya Rahm claims to have occurred ..". It continued to say that though Mr. Kreydick was residing in India he was available for deposition on March 6th 2006 as he was travelling to USA at that time. As you pointed out they did mention how he was relevant to the case. Then defendent requested Mr.Kreydick deposition to the court to be allowed. Following this is the Exhibit "A" - which mentions that Mr.Kreydick had a 6 page deposition. Noel & Breslford represented the Plaintiff (Alaya Rahm).
• Links to Mr. Kreydick deposition - http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-kreydick/a-scan-01.html. He was examined by Ms.Cohen who was on behalf of the defendent (Sathya Sai Baba Society). As you can see it was very detailed including his background, how he met Alaya Rahm parents, detailed discussion about Alaya Rahm trip etc. Mr.Kreydick was also interrogated by Breslford in between who represented the Plaintiff. Mr. Kreydick mentioned how 'Alaya Rahm' had shared all his personal stories and how was his close confidant friend at that time. http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/scans-kreydick/a-scan-04.html. This shows Mr. Kreydick was more than just a family friend.
• There are 12 scanned detailed documents about his whole deposition. It might be too much to look at. As you can see its very detailed. The deposition gives a lot of information about Rahm's family - their past profession everything which was not known before, in this case because Mr.Kreydick was more than a family friend who knew pretty much everything about Rahm family.
• My argument is that this deposition was very crucial for the case. The deposition was not just a document to see who arranged the trip but rather also had parts where Mr. Kreydick was questioned by the interrogaters to find more details about the Plaintiff Alaya Rahm - who filed the case. There were questions whether Alaya Rahm had drinking habits at that time and so forth.
• I will also look at the Orange Court records and try to provide more links. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Any derogatory claims that a primary source makes in a lawsuit is not usable because of WP:BLP. Anyone can make a claim in a lawsuit. Only how the court rules on the lawsuit and its reasoning can be considered, and that within the WP:BLP guidelines.

--Javaweb (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

That is absolutely correct. We have been waiting for you to find more details about this case, but if we are only waiting for you to find slanderous and irrelevant material to try to use against this person then I am inclined to wait no longer. This case was entirely about who paid for Rahm's trip to India, and it was demonstrated that Kreydick paid for it. That's it. Rumiton (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A lawsuit about who paid for a trip is irrelevant. --Javaweb (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Rumiton, I was not trying to slander anybody all I tried to do was to give more details of Mr. Kreydick deposition as we were talking about his deposition. I am not planning to use his deposition anywhere in the article. It was only for our discussion to understand this case. Are you ok with the following statement regarding the case and Alaya Rahm? Can we rephrase the article statement as given below just mentioning only facts and no opinions of any sort.
• As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California. The trial was set for April 28, 2006. Alaya (the plaintiff) self-dismissed his own lawsuit on April 17th 2006. His case and Counter Case were "Dismissed With Prejudice" meaning that the same claims cannot be refiled again. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to either his case or the counter case dismissal.[137][138].

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You said During an interview with Asian Voice magazine Ashok Bhagani, a trustee of the Sai Organization in the UK, said that the allegations in the Secret Swami documentary were baseless. Bhagani said that devotees never meet Sai Baba alone.

The above statement has to be corrected it was vandalized many time the exact statement of Ashok Bhagani was as follows

"Asian Voice spoke to Mr Ashok Bhagani, a trustee of the Sai Organisation UK, who said, "The BBC has acted totally irresponsibly. The allegations in the documentary are completely factless and baseless." He adds, "What actual evidence does the BBC have to substantiate these claims? These allegations have been circulating for years and have never been proved. As far as I’m concerned, there are 30 million happy devotees in the world, but every so often you will get two or three who will make these wild allegations." Mr Bhagani also states that when devotees are selected by Sai Baba for a private interview, there is always someone else present in the room, and this is especially the case when women and children meet him. "We will not take these claims lying down", says Mr Bhagani, "we will protest and make our feelings clear to the BBC."

This is how we can reword the case statement from the article.

As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California. The trial was set for April 28, 2006. Alaya (the plaintiff) self-dismissed his own lawsuit on April 17th 2006. The case was self dismissed 'with prejudice', meaning that he is barred from bringing an action on the same claim again or cannot refile charges in the future. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to either his case or the counter case dismissal.[137][138] The Pioneer article also stated that neither Sathya Sai Baba, nor any organizations associated with him, have been charged or convicted with sexual abuse or any other crime in a court of law."[137]

See above on the SSB Society's counter case, the mutual self-dismissal and the meaning of "with prejudice." Regarding the last sentence, I think fairness requires we at least mention the many other allegations that have been made over many years, perhaps starting with Tal Brooke's books from 1975. Rumiton (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The counter case dismissal can also be mentioned. I have rephrased it below.

As per The Pioneer article published on 31 March 2009, Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in the Superior Court of California. The trial was set for April 28, 2006. Alaya (the plaintiff) self-dismissed his own lawsuit on April 17th 2006. His case and Counter Case were "Self dismissed With Prejudice" meaning that the same claims cannot be refiled again or barred from bringing an action on the same claims. No offers of monetary settlement were paid to either his case or the counter case dismissal.[137][138]

Getting there, but we need to introduce the fact that there was a counter case at the same time as we first talk about the primary case. Also the wording is not quite right. It still suggests that the court imposed the restriction against refiling any similar claim, when in fact the stricture was mutually agreed by Rahm and the SBS. Rumiton (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In legal terminology "Dismissed with Prejudice" or "Dismissed with out prejudice" are the only terms which are used. What seems to matters is whether the case was dismissed with prejudice or with out prejudice. Whether it was self dismissed or court dismissed does not seem to matter. The following below are the exact words from the court document:

"The Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his complaint, with Prejudice and the cross-complainant has agreed to dismiss his cross-complaint with Prejudice. No economic consideration has been paid in exchange for either of these dismissals'.

This is exactly what I had replicated in my statement. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO it matters a great deal. In dismissal, a court looks into the evidence presented and decides it is of insufficient quality to mount a court case. There is a clear implication that the filing may not have been in good faith. In self dismissal the former plaintiff decides of his own volition not to proceed. There is a host of possible reasons, including financial incapacity, and there is no implication of bad faith. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "Self-Dismissed" was added by us to this case. For instance, in a Legal dictionary, there is no term called "Self Dismissed with Prejudice". I feel that we are interpreting and adding meaning to a term which does not really exist legally. There is only a term "Dismissal with Prejudice" Atleast I could n't find this legal term "Self Dismissed with Prejudice" anywhere. If you could find this term in a legal dictionary then we can discuss more. Radiantenergy (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read many of those allegation stories. It goes like Mr A said his friend Mr. B knows a person Mr. C who claims that he was abused and this is how the story line goes. Most of these stories are from libel negative attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba. Many of these sites were banned during the arbitration case. Tal Brooke is again filled with lot of those libel speculative allegation stories. I am against adding those speculative libel attack stories.

I agree they should not be itemised or their content represented as fact, but I would think these allegations over many years are a part of his notability, and should be ackowledged. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sathya Sai Baba was notable for his Miracles for instance. Every scholar has covered his Miracles. Babb, Kent, Haralddson, Eade and Weiss - all spoke about his miracles. The same is not true wih allegations. Allegation stories gained momentum only in 2000 with Alaya Rahm interview to BBC and Seduced. But after Alaya Rahm self dismissed case in 2006 the allegation stories also died down. There was not a single new allegation story after 2006 Alaya Rahm self dismissed law suit. These were one time stories covered mostly in libel attack websites and had claims which were never proved or verified.
• In Wikipedia, almost in every important forum there's serious discussion on reducing Criticism in Biographies. That being the case, Why should allegation and speculative libel stories be added in this sensitive article where the subject of the article has recently passed away?. This is an article which went through arbitrations that's all the more reason to keep this article NPOV and encyclopedic.

This is a living biography (about Rahm) which is required to be the most carefully written of all Wikipedia articles. Look what we say about him at the moment: His "challenge lacked merit" and was "dismissed with prejudice", was "baseless", while he "railed against" SB with "wild and recklessly concocted" and "false" allegations". He as compared to Judas, while sympathetic media did not "ascertain the true facts", spread "calumny" and "mean mindedness", made "false statements", spread "vulgar tales" and were compared to "the cawing of crows." Let me put this very mildly: this will not continue. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there has been a complete misunderstanding about "Response to Criticim section". This is where knowledge of sources really helps.

Alaya Rahm is used only in 2 places in the article Under Criticism section and when talking about the case and is used nowhere else in the article. We are working to rephrase the case anyway once we understand and agree on the legal terminologies.

• In Response to Criticism section understanding the time line and the context of the responses should clear your doubts.
• The Secret Swami (2004): The Secret Swami documentary (taken in 2004) was filled with inflammatary material and libel content. Along with 'Alaya Rahm' allegations they were also filled with other verbal abuses of Sathya Sai Baba. They interviewed and expressed views of Premanand (Well known critic of Sathya Sai Baba) and projected Sathya Sai Baba as a Criminal. Premananda called "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man" which was indeed factless and baseless. The documentary was full of allegation of fakery, fraud and murder on Baba expressed by critics Premananda and Narendra Nayak. One of the series was titled "Sathya Sai Baba God Man or Con Man".
• The Secret Swami was completely one sided. It was telecasted all around the World with all its accusations, abuses and libel content and views of his critics on Sathya Sai Baba. They projected the views that Sathya Sai Baba was not criminalised only because of his political connections. This documentary had a total negative global impact about Sathya Sai Baba.

• Inspite of all this serious POV pushing, baseless, factless research and unverified allegations covered in Secret Swami which had a global negative impact and is used in this Wikipedia article - we have added only 2 responses to all this criticism expressed in 'Secret Swami'. One is from Asian Voice magazine and Bill Aitken response to the "Week" magazine.
• The other part of the 'Response to Criticism' - is response to the India Today article allegations which was published in 2000. This article published again strong views of critics such as Premanada - allegations of fake Miracles, fraud, murder on Sathya Sai Baba. India Today article accusations of skeptic views are covered in the Miracle section in this Wikipedia article. This India Today article had a major impact at that time. After this article was published Sathya Sai Baba publically challenged all these allegations going around in Print Media. In 2001, Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Prime Minister at that time) released a signed letter expressing his concerns about these unverified allegations going around in Print Media levelled on Sathya Sai Baba.

The Response to Criticism is a very important section it addresses the response to all the Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba expressed in the whole article. What we have today in the 'Response to Criticism' section is a very trimmed down version compared to all the accusations in the whole article.

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Radiantenergy (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point that the article actually says very little about the allegations, seems to imply that Rahm was the only complainant, then devotes quite a lot of space to denigrating his claim, and by implication, his character. This is neither neutral nor balanced, and unacceptable in a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Rumiton, half of the Criticism - Views of Skeptics was merged under the "Miracle" section by other wikipidians when this article was linked from the Main page at the time of his passing. They said that in Wikipedia we are moving from laying emphasis on Criticism in Biographies to presenting a more neutral point of View. I do agree with that approach. What's happened now is some of the responses to those references are still left under 'Response to Criticism' Section. I will move the relevant responses to relevant sections and then we can discuss more on this. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence we can rephrase it. All its says "He was never charged or convicted in a Court Of Law" which is indeed a true statement.

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBC documentary Secret Swami was not one-side 1. It showed extensively the charity projects. 2. It gave the Sai officials (Michael Goldstein) the chance to react to the accusations. 3. Regarding the allegations of fakery, SSB has had all the chances to give a reply for decades to show his miracles in controlled circumstances. It is his fault that he always refused or evaded this.

All the allegations have been accumulated for decades and had been very well documented by Basava Premanand. With regards to the accusation of libel, it is very easy to sue for libel in the UK.Andries (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Andries, I am not surprised by your response that you didn't find anything wrong with one-sided POV pushing BBC documentary - Secret Swami. Your WP:COI with Sathya Sai Baba is obviously playing a role here. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted Removal of Edits which provide correct info

I strongly feel a group of rationalists are involved in Vandalism of this article by providing the wrong info abt Sri Sathya Sai Baba.

1st, when, the charges against him are not proved, what's point of including in the article ? The charges were often fake and baseless.

2nd, whenever, any pic is added to the infobox, it's being removed citing "copyright issues". Just tell me, how can it violate copyright of the image when it's being uploaded here by the Sri Satya Sai Central Trust itself ?

3rd, when any useful info is being added, the info is removed immediately ! This is an extreme case of Vandalism

I appeal to all the editors here to be NEUTRAL.

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1. In Wikipedia reputable sources are summarized. Reputable sources have reported these allegations, so they are reported here. Clearly Wikipedia could not work if edits were merely based on subjective assessments of contributors/editors, regarding what is false and true. Andries (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think that writing in the infobox on top that SSB became 96 years old, is undue emphasis i.e. not Wikipedia:NPOV, because the majority of sources reported that the did not fulfill his prophecy and died at 84 years old. (If you are a follower of SSB and read his discourses then you know very well that the always referred to calendar years. For example, his birthday was always celebrated on the 23rd of November and the lunar years explanation was only invented posthumously.) Andries (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I may or may not be a Sri SSB follower or devotee but I rely on my two eyes, two ears to know the facts. I'm 100% Neutral on Wikipedia. Here's an account which proves that Sri SSB followed the Hindu lunar calender :

This incident, which took place in 1986, gives a precedent for Sri Satya Sai Baba using lunar years :

• Ghandikota Aryama's grandfather was the late B. Sri Ghandikota Subrahmanya Sastry, a famous Sanskrit pandit and devotee of Swami, to whom the Sai Gayatri was revealed. When his grandfather attained nirvana in 1986, at the age of 93, Swami came to their flat in Prasanthi Nilayam and stated that his grandfather was a maharishi and had reached the age of 100 years (even though he was 93).
• Later, Aryama asked his father, B. Sri Ghandikota Subba Rao, about the discrepancy.
• B. Sri Ghandikota Subba Rao said that Swami uses the traditional Indian Lunar years, based on lunar months not adjusted for the solar years, in determining a person's lifespan.

27 days make a Lunar month. 12 lunar months make 1 lunar year. 100 such lunar years equaled 93 years for Aryama's grandfather.

And coming to the fact that his birthday was celebrated on 23rd November every year, I would say, He has told several times in his discourses that he has no birth or death, but it's his devotees,who, celebrate his b'day for their satisfaction and bliss. It has got nothing to do with SSSB. He never asked people to celebrate his b'day.

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And above we have a discussion claiming there is no such thing as a "lunar year", that the years were "sidereal years" and that sidereal years are actually longer than solar years. Please contribute freely, but with reputable sources rather than anecdotal, devotee-generated sources like the above. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I admit that SSB in his discourses did not always support celebrating his birthday, but even if he disapproved it in his discourses, he always used the regular calendar and not lunar months. The majority of reputable sources stated SSB did not fulfill his promise of passing away at the age of 96, so the Wikipedia article should reflect that. Hence the age of 96 should not be stated in the infobox on top. Andries (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• There's been a lot of edit warring going on for this. I request all the editors to keep cool. Please discuss here first with out edit warring in the article. I didn't find time to contribute to this discussion as I was busy with the other discussions. In the past we have resolved several complex issues related to this article through discussions. I am sure eventually we will be able to resolve this issue also. We may have to look at more sources and come up with a statement which is acceptable from Wikipedia standards. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. We now have until May 20 to agree on these issues. I hope you will find time to research and address the issues raised above, particularly those surrounding the court case, as that is the source of the BLP problem as I see it. Really I should have deleted what I saw as the defamatory aspects immediately, and I am not comfortable with this delay. Please try to get to this issue ASAP. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the recent passing of Sai Baba, it is clear through reliable media sources that Sai Baba has millions of devotees and has done yeoman service to mankind, such as free hospitals, schools and water projects among other things. It is also clear that he was highly respected by politicians, people of prominence and other holy fiqures who commented on his passing such as the Dalai Lama and Ammachi. There is an element out there that wish at any cost to do harm to his name. These views and people are certainly in the minority.(Proven by recent coverage in the press) Some editors in the past have tried to magnify this to a ridiculous degree in this article. Now come on, the reality is that Sai Baba was a great humanitarian. The allegations came from a few quarters and were never proven. In fact if you read the life of Sai Baba, people have been trying to kill and defame him since childhood without success. There was no internet then. The point being if you look at his life from a fair standpoint and with rationality which is the standard for wikipedia. You will see now that the recent articles in reliable sources clearly weigh heavily towards the immense good that Sai Baba brought to the world and scant mention of the allegations. Even if you dont believe in the Divinity of Sai Baba, one has to look at the facts of his life, not the gossip "tales" by interested parties. You can never get good fruit from a bad seed. We have to look at the life in totality for the article. Yes their were allegations (All throughout his life) but they are insignificant in the life of Sai Baba as they had no effect whatsoever on his reputation and on his "mission" in life. The allegations need to be refuted because they were never proven, otherwise it amounts to slander as it is not based on any facts. As far as the age thing he did not live until the age predicted as understood by most if not all the devotees and other people. It may be true that he himself knew what he was saying but I think his age should be left at 85, not 96. It can be mentioned that some believe he referred to the vedic Calender. I will be adding content from recent article from reliable sources in the next few days. Sbs108 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss your changes here before significantly changing the article, to avoid starting an edit war. I would also point out that most of your above post is your personal analysis of the subject, in which Wikipedia has no interest. We can only look at what reputable secondary sources say, and produce a balanced treatment of the topic from them. Please help us to achieve this. Rumiton (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look if widely respected fiqures such as the past and current president of India and the past and current Prime Minister of India as well as many other dignitaries such as the Dalai Lama publicly comment about Sai Baba and it is reported in reliable sources, it certainly deserves a lot more weight than an accusatory documentary with false, never proven and baseless charges. They never defined in the least the life of Sai Baba. The facts show that Sai Baba did many good things for society and people, there are no facts that show he did any harm. So No its not my personal opinion that Sai Baba did good, it is proven by his free hospitals schools and water project and the millions of devotees who claim he transformed their life for the better. This will be shown in coming days from the boatload of articles written in reliable sources about Sai Baba in the last month that show his life in the proper perspective. Most of these articles mention the "controversy", but quickly add that claims were never proven and he was never charged. The tone of these articles is not of accusation or suspicion, it is of praise.Dont worry I am not going to change the article but I will add things from reliable sources as there as been many articles since Sai Baba's passing. Sbs108 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot "add things from reliable sources" without "changing the article," and then others may feel obliged to do likewise. There are many reliable sources who place greater emphasis on the controversies than you would like to see. It is a question of balance and you can help us achieve it. Rumiton (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"There are many reliable sources who place greater emphasis on the controversies than you would like to see." Are you serious? Do you know the amount of books written on Sai Baba? Thousands! Do you know how many show a negative slant? Maybe one if that. I have no axe to grind, look at whats out there objectively and you will see correctly. The article is fine as it is. What I add will only help. By the way I spent over a year helping to get this article to its present respectable state. Before that it was dominated by more than one person who each had attack websites on Sai Baba and still do! I do agree the "allegations" should be mentioned but thats it. People are innocent until proven guilty, that is the legal standard. I think the article right now looks good.Sbs108 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikisunn/Radiantenergy sockpuppet investigation

Editors please note the ongoing sockpuppet investigation regarding Radiantenergy, and Jehochman's call for problematic diffs [12]. --JN466 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To all lovers and haters

All of you, off this page. This is not the place to glorify or denigrate a particular religion or group. If you aren't here to write about the topic in a neutral way based upon reliable, independent sources, you should choose another topic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC Documentary supported by reliable news organizations

WP:NPOV SUPPORTS this being included:

[it] means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

— WP:NPOV

The original source is BBC News Reporter: Tanya Datta; Producer/Director: Eamon Hardy; Editor: Karen O'Connor (17 June, 2004). "Secret Swami". This World. BBC. BBC 2. Retrieved 2011-05-15. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |airdate= (help); External link in |station= and |transcripturl= (help); Unknown parameter |transcripturl= ignored (|transcript-url= suggested) (help).

After being vetted and broadcast by other countries, CBC News broadcasted it, saying,

Since the late 1990's people have come forward with allegations of sexual abuse against Sai Baba himself. This led the BBC to investigate these allegations in the documentary "The Secret Swami", which has already been broadcast in a number of countries. We at CBC Newsworld have decided that this is an important investigative documentary that should be seen in Canada. We stand by the journalistic practices and integrity of our colleagues at the BBC.

— The Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) News, the national broadcast service. (emphasis in the original)(see cite above)

. The CBC News is the most trusted source of news in Canada and is a government entity.

The reporter who reported on the Sai Baba story for the American Broadcast Corporation (ABC), Clarissa Ward, endorses the documentary as "brilliant"

http://twitter.com/#!/clarissaward/status/62389869955137536 Clarissa Ward April 24, 2011]

This is authentic. She posts her twitter feed address on the ABC News Story on the official ABC News site at Correspondent: Clarissa Ward (October 20, 2010). "Miracles or Magic Tricks? Questioning the 'Divine' Talents of India's Gurus". ABC. {{cite episode}}: Missing or empty |series= (help) She is a regular contributor to Nightline, which has been on for 30 years across America on one of its most-watched networks.

I have reviewed the Talk archives and arbitration. Concerns were

• BLP (He is not a living person)
• primary participants editing (not an issue for me)
• the use of primary sources, such as stuff published by Sai Baba (no problem) and
• referencing non-reliable sites (BBC, CBC, ABC are reliable, especially where they concur)

--Javaweb (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• I want to make a few things clear. BBC is not a new source. The BBC transcripts are already used as reference in this article. Regarding the proposed 'You Tube Videos on Secret Swami'- again not a new source. There had been several discussions in this same talk page - Why it cannot be used. I don't see any point in starting the same old discussion again and again for every new user. I have copied comments from old discussions showing opposition from other editors to using these negative POV pushing Videos.

Opposition from Other editors against You Tube Video - Secret Swami (Talk Page archive)

• They really are, if nothing else, pushing POV in the section. The fact that the miracles are believed to be staged is more than adequately covered in the text, so the videos are, in my opinion, overkill. Onopearls (t/c) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am still not convinced that there is merit for including the videos. I did a quick look at List of controversial issues/people very few, if any, have videos about the topics. I believe that adequately explaining each miracle (such as saying he supposed conjured a small amount of ash) would be much easier, and much less controversial, than adding videos. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Even though i readded it, on further reflection i support its non-inclusion. Policy probably argues against it and it is, at any rate, a distraction from this articles much bigger textual problems. Bali ultimate (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think videos should be in the article for the following reasons.1)If we allow videos than every side will be adding their videos causing a video "war". The article is likely to get filled up with all kinds of videos, good, bad and kooky. Where does it end? I believe it will cause more trouble than its worth. People will constantly come and add or delete the videos. 2) Anyone who is interested can go to you tube and search for videos of Sai Baba. I believe there are hundreds of videos. 3) People who believe in Sai Baba have faith that the materializations and Miracles are real. People who do not believe in Sai Baba have faith that they are fake. 4)An example, people who believe in Jesus today never "witnessed" His miracles" of the Bible yet they have faith, that they happened. There were people in Jesus's time who saw the "miracles" first hand and thought they were fake or the work of the devil, my point is it serves no purpose and doesn't prove or disprove anything, so there is no reason for them to be in the article.Sbs108 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree to adding any videos to this article neither positive or negative. All these Videos seems to be pushing POV views either proving its a miracle or pushing POV proving its a fake. Wikipedia emphasizes greatly on keeping the article neutral and encyclopedic and not to take any sides. In that perspective adding videos will not do any good to this article. There is already enough material in the article about miracle claims and refutation to claims. Radiantenergy (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• On fair use, There is a side issue here surrounding fair use - without making a judgement, the question that first needs to be answered is do the videos really add anything to the readers' understanding of the article subject that could not be expressed in words? If not then the videos fail the fair use rationale and should not be hosted on wikipedia. Whether they are controversial or not is irrelevant at that point. If this were an article on the subjects miracles themselves then the fair use claim would probably have more grounds than it would in a biographical article. Mfield (Oi!) 04:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• But that misses the point. The main reason that Madonna is famous is for her music, but we cannot justify having fair use copies of her music videos, we don't have fair use videos of David Beckham taking penalty kicks, we don't have fair use videos of Brad Pitt acting in movies. These are all people who's work could be readily illustrated by video but we don't host fair use videos of them because we can't make a sufficiently strong rationale (partly - and this is important - since they are living persons). There are tight restrictions on fair use for good reason, without a very sound justification, Wikipedia is violating someone else's copyright. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other on these specific videos, I am clarifying the fair use/copyright status which needs to be considered, per policy, if these videos are to be, or even can be, included in this article. Mfield (Oi!) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• That was not my point, I was not offering any opinion on how illustrative these specific videos are, i am remaining neutral in the intrests of being able to mediate. My point was purely that fair use videos have a very high bar for illustrative purposes, this is the reason why you don't find videos used all over wikipedia to illustrate things when text or still images can suffice. Any argument/rationale for their inclusion needs to take this into account and make a very strong case for why text or still images cannot provide adequate illustration. Mfield (Oi!) 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The above discussion should make it clear why the You Tube Videos - Secret Swami cannot be used for the various stated reasons.

Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos are definitely not acceptable as reputable sources. OTOH, if a genuine reputable source tells us that such videos have affected the notability of the subject, and this is not a minority view, then the article should report this. The BBC documentary is probably in a similar category. The fact that it exists is relevant, its content may not be. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw these comments among the bunch. In this case, we know we have the BBC documentary (archived on youtube) vouched for and we know it is intact and has not been tampered with. Multiple reputable news sources have vouched for its relevance and importance by broadcasting it. In terms of fair use, we are only linking to it. That is exactly what an ABC correspondent did. ABC News has not seen a copyright issue and neither do I.

--Javaweb (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Per WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO, we cannot link to a YouTube copy of a BBC video that has been posted on YouTube by someone who is called "Looktothecross1" and seems to have no connection to the BBC whatsoever. If you have further questions on this, please address them to User:Moonriddengirl, who handles copyright issues. (The video itself meets WP:RS, but is clearly contentious. Statements sourced to it should not be stated as fact, but attributed. It may be best though to use sources summarising or commenting on the BBC programme.) --JN466 11:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Economic valuation of Satya Sai institutions estimated at 40,000 crore

A report in the economic times has estimated the total valuation for the Sathya Sai Baba's institutions at Rs. 40,000 crores:

Sai Baba leaves behind a wide network of charitable institutions, hospitals, schools, colleges, which some estimate to be worth about Rs 40,000 crore -[13]

I had added this important aspect to the article in April, and about a week later user:Thebigbee removed the sentence along with the reference, with the comment:

The original Economic Times article does not state the source of Estimate. If the estimate is from unsdisclosed sources, it could be a speculative number. Hence, it must not appear in Wikipedia)

However, Wikipedia needs cite only sources which are reputed and verifiable; here Economic Times is India's most trusted financial paper, and the item is clearly verifiable.

I am re-inserting this fact.

Please feel free to edit the item based on other sources. E.g. you may say that this valuation is debated, and here is an alternative estimate. Or you may quote more direct (primary) sources - but you cannot just delete a neutral encyclopedically relevant fact with a reputed verifiable citation. mukerjee (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

40,000 crore IRS is about USD$8.89 billion. A similar number appeared in many reliable obits, as estimates I believe. One question is how much of the money is tied up in land-holdings and buildings that will never be sold so really aren't liquid wealth or part of the trust that can be spent. The trust is a huge part of his legacy.

--Javaweb (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Rumoured removal of treasures fron Baba's humble dwelling.

I have not changed paragraph 3 though I humbly believe it has no place in a credible Wikipedia coverage. It reads:- Sathya Sai Baba founded a large number of schools and colleges, hospitals, and other charitable institutions in India and abroad, the total value of which is usually estimated at Rs. 40,000 crore (USD 8.9 billion).[24][25] [26] - however, estimates as high as 1.4 trillion rupees (about USD 35bn) have been suggested[27]. After his death, the non-transparent[25] manner in which the finances of the organization are managed have led to speculations of impropriety, with some reports suggesting that suitcases with gold have been removed from his lodgings[26], while others hint at wealth being secreted behind doors that remain locked even a month after his passing.[28][29] Parallels with the transition after the passing of Osho or Mata Anandamayi indicate that the transition in managing the large organization may not be easy[30].

Having personal views to the contrary, and seeing this as an unsound paragraph, of inuendo I reinvestigated my sources and returned to Wikipedia with that same view, so I then examined the quoted footnotes FN: 26 FN: 28, FN: 29, and FN: 30. below is my consideration in detail as I believe some more eloquent and informed could modify the paragraph to reflect thatvthere is really no credible source to such gossip, envy, inuendo or rumour.

here are the stated references discussed with an open mind I believe.

04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)~~ Details Zero Evidence, just Rumor Anonymous Gossip countered safety in place. 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)~~ Rob remarks: Wikipedia fn. 25 discussed as proof on non transparency etc. True. But also gives the safeguards "The godman has institutionalised all the activities with help from trusted professionals, including eminent jurists like ex-chief justice of India P.N. Bhagwati and, in earlier years, Supreme Court judges V.R. Krishna Iyer and V. Balakrishna Eradi, retired Andhra Pradesh High Court judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu, besides politicians of all hues and bureaucrats.

Surely one can't do much better and must believe them when they said below "but the SSSCT does have an elaborate system of checks and balances in place to rein in siphoning of what the devout have contributed to Sathya Sai Baba's multifarious charities."

04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)~~FN. 28 Details Zero Evidence, just Rumor Anonymous Gossip 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Rob remarks: Whereas Wikipedia fn. 26 raises only unfounded, gossip and innuendo under a cloak of source anonymity, and spiteful envious relatives admitting, they were passed over for a post. Nothing worthy of Wikipedia test of reliability. Viz;. The death of spiritual leader Sathya Sai Baba has left a question mark on the future of the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust (SSSCT), estimated to have assets worth Rs 40,000 crore ($9 billion). As Baba, who was chairperson of the trust, left no successor to the massive empire, his death might trigger a fight for succession among the trust members which include his nephew R.J. Ratnakar.

While some eminent devotees of Baba believe that with personalities like former chief justice of India P.N. Bhagvati on the board, the trust will carry on in a smooth manner various charitable work in India and abroad, they also fear the government might take over control in case of any rift among the members.

"There is no rift among the trust members but I can't say this about Baba's family members," a retired police officer, who is an ardent devotee of Baba told IANS on condition of anonymity. He said the government might take over if such a situation arises.

Ever since Baba was admitted to hospital with multi-organ dysfunction last month, speculation of differences among trust members were doing the rounds. Ratnakar, son of Baba's brother, reportedly wanted cheque power which is presently with trust member secretary A. Chakravarthi, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, who quit his job on Baba's advise to join his network.

Though not a member of the trust, Satyajit, Baba's personal caregiver, is allegedly trying to have a greater say in the financial matters as Baba had reportedly promised him last year a key post on the trust.

Reports in a section of vernacular media suggest that suitcases full of money and gold were taken out of Prashanti Nilayam, the ashram of Baba. However, some well-known devotees have denied the reports.

"Since all the contributions to the trust come in the form of cheques and it does not accept cash, there is no scope for misappropriation of even a single rupee," said former judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court J. Eswara Prasad.

According to Prasad, Bhagvati recently met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to brief him about the activities of the trust and to clear the air in view of the "rumours". Sai Baba had formed the trust in 1972 to run the affairs of his massive spiritual empire. It is under SSSCT that dozens of trusts in about 160 countries are running educational institutions, hospitals, drinking water schemes and undertaking various other service activities.

Besides Bhagavati, Chakravarthi and Ratnakar, S.V. Giri, a former chief vigilance commissioner, Indulal Shah, a chartered accountant-turned entrepreneur and Venu Srinivasan of TVS Motors are members of the trust.

Ratnakar was inducted by Baba last year following the death of his father Janakiram. Nobody from the children of Baba's two other brothers and sisters have any say in the trust.

The trust always kept itself away from the media. Not much is known about the donations it receives from India and abroad, which are exempt from tax. Since Baba's devotees include heads of states and governments, rich businessmen and celebrities.

The trust is believed to have received donations running into billions of rupees from across the world. The lack of transparency, however, has given rise to suspicion. Following the recent allegations, Ratnakar had denied any fund diversion. He also stated that all the foreign donations are deposited in a separate bank account as per the norms approved by the union home ministry under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976.

The trust runs the Sathya Sai University complex, the 220-bed Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, where Baba breathed his last; a world religion museum; a planetarium; a railway station; a hill-view stadium; a music college; an administrative building; an airport and an indoor sports stadium in Puttaparthi.

It also runs a specialty hospital in Bangalore, several other hospitals and dispensaries in the backward district of Anantapur. It also funded several drinking water projects, including one for 731 villages in Anantapur district, and Krishna water supply to Chennai

Then wikipedia fn.28 from Zeenews is agai9n only gossip & unsupported innuendo, rightly criticised, and dispelled by comments of faithful, thet Zeenews left stand. See below:- Zeenews Bureau

Puttaparthi: Suspense is deepening about what lies behind the sealed doors of departed spiritual leader Sathya Sai Baba’s personal residence, the Yajur Mandir, even as speculation is rife that about presence of a treasure.

No one is said to have entered Baba’s chamber ever since he was hospitalised on April 28. The keys to the room were with the Baba’s personal caretaker Satyajit, who reportedly handed them over to K Chakravarthi, the secretary of Sathya Sai Central Trust, after Sathya Sai's death on May 24.

<a href="http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink/3.0/1191/3111109/0/165/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtech.de/adserv/3.0/1191/3111109/0/165/ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+key3+key4" border="0" width="250" height="250"></a> As per certain media reports, large quantities of gold and other precious gifts worth crores of rupees - that were presented to Baba by his devotees - was shipped out by some of his associates, while he lay battling for life at the hospital.

The Sathya Sai Central Trust which met here yesterday deferred taking a decision as two trust members, Justice PM Bhagavati and Indulala Shah did not turn up for the meeting.

It is said that the trust members want the government to appoint a special officer and the chamber be opened in his presence.

Politics is also heating up over the issue with former TDP minister Dadithota Nagireddy demanding that the mandir be opened only in the presence of devotees, while also asking the trust to reveal all the details about the assets under the control of the trust by June 16.

Comments

deeya - mauritius surprisingly almost all great men doing great work have always been criticised.baba has done what the government has not done for the people of putaprthi and india.if in every village of india there were somebody who could build universities hospital roads and other things that baba contributed india would certainly not be what it is today.did baba take any gold or crore with him ? so stop pointing fingers at him as if he anmassed fortunes. baba has done what the government or the numerous billionaires have failed to do.thank you baba

kkURUP - Mumbai if you do not know dont talk dont expose your pettiness you r underestimating the avatar of kaliyuga shri satya sai baba. 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)~~FN. 29 Details Zero Evidence, just Rumor Anonymous Gossip 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob remarks: So Wikipedia then has fn.29 from IBN does nothing but prove the saveguards include Police & Government vigil security.

India

Rob remarks: I don't go much on the veracity of their news anyhow, as they offer $300 a day for work from home journalism.

ANANTAPUR: The suspense over the re-opening of the Yajurveda Mandir, the residence of the late spiritual leader Sri Satya Sai Baba, is continuing with the trust members still being unable to decide when to reopen it.

Officials sealed the mandir barring the entry of others, including Satya Sai Trust members, into the official residence of Baba in the wake of media reports that large quantities of gold and other valuables were shipped out of the mandir while the Baba lay in hospital in Puttaparthi battling for life. It was rumoured then that the articles smuggled out by some trust members and other Baba’s associates included gold and silver necklaces and other precious gifts worth crores of rupees presented to the Baba by devotees.

Against the backdrop, the authorities and trust members have decided not to open the Yajurveda Mandir till the government appoints a special officer and to reopen it only in his presence. Police were posted to prevent anyone from opening the Mandir. Now there were sudden rumours that trust members were preparing to reopen the Mandir on Monday, forcing police to keep a tighter vigil.

Meanwhile, former minister G Nagi Reddy, who arrived at Puttaparthi, said the mandir should be opened only in the presence of officials and appealed to the trust not to act against the sentiments of devotees. He also wanted it to reveal all the happenings to people and conduct all activities in a transparent manner. 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)~~FN. 30 Details Zero Evidence, just Rumor Anonymous Gossip 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Rob remarks: As to Wikipedia fn.30 the final reference, from Livemint a Wall Street Journal (far more reliable world news media rightly prefaces it as all Rumors sparking confusion.

Commenters to most stories are wisely in the same vain. deeya - mauritius surprisingly almost all great men doing great work have always been criticised.baba has done what the government has not done for the people of putaprthi and india.if in every village of india there were somebody who could build universities hospital roads and other things that baba contributed india would certainly not be what it is today.did baba take any gold or crore with him ? so stop pointing fingers at him as if he anmassed fortunes. baba has done what the government or the numerous billionaires have failed to do.thank you baba

kkURUP - Mumbai if you do not know dont talk dont expose your pettiness you r underestimating the avatar of kaliyuga shri satya sai baba.

Priyanka P. Narain Puttaparthy: On the outside, little has changed in the town of Puttaparthy. At the sprawling Sri Sathya Sai Baba ashram, the Vedas are recited and the bhajans are sung. Just as they used to be.

But within, there is turmoil. On 24 April, their living god, as devotees often described Sathya Sai Baba, breathed his last and confusion gripped the town that was his home. The Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust—billed to be one of India’s largest with assets worth approximately Rs. 40,000 crore—has not yet named its next chairman, the person who will act as the keeper of Baba’s traditions and legacy. Each day brings new rumours, whispers of fresh intrigue and manoeuvring among contenders for the position.

The passing of the mantle in institutions built around the charisma of one man or woman is never an easy process, as evidenced by the trials that beset the organization that used to be presided over by Osho (also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh).

At Puttaparthy, the initial two contenders were said to be the popular Satyajit, Baba’s caregiver and personal assistant, and R.J. Rathnakar, Baba’s nephew. Since only a trust member can be appointed chairman, Satyajit first needed to be inducted into the council in order to qualify.

But any move in that direction was squelched by Venu Srinivasan, a key trustee of the All India Sai Organizations, when he said: “We have no intentions to include him in the trust” as Satyajit was only a student of the Sathya Sai University chosen to become Baba’s caregiver, and “that is all his position is”.

Other names have since been mentioned: Chetana Raju, granddaughter of Baba’s older sister who runs the women’s welfare trust; P.N. Bhagawati, the 90-year-old former chief justice of India. Rathnakar, a trust member and nephew of Baba confined to a wheelchair, stays in the running. Rob remarks: Probably why he didn't attend that last meeting?

The latest word is that one, or maybe even two of them, will be chosen at a trust meeting likely next week. Srinivasan refused to give anything away, asking: “Why do you people believe in speculation?”

Few gurus name successors or put in place the procedure to be followed when they die. “Transitions always bring turmoil. Some amount of turmoil is good,” said Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation that has a presence in 152 countries, explaining why he did not care much about the succession question. Rob remarks: Even in personal wills of ordinary people, if named and declared before death, will too often mean human envy & Greed will cause unwarranted dissention, retribution, even legal senility charges. Best be a private matter to the bequethor, rather than the bequethee and wishful expectees. .

Sudhir Kakar, psychoanalyst and author, who has written about the hold godmen have over Indians, explains what the passing of the guru means.

“Once the godman (or woman) is gone, the magic is gone. Except for old timers, new visitors come to these ashrams just like another pilgrimage place,”he said. “It is a place where you were once in contact with divinity, but the spirit is gone.” Rob remarks: As with Ho Chi Minh mausoleum to Vietnamese Communists, and tourists alike.

Most organizations diminish after the guru goes, except for those with a strong institutional structure in place. Even so, “the best that they can hope for is that they can keep the memory and legacy of their guru secure”, Kakar said.

Long-standing devotees say the organization is unimportant when the guru is alive, then becomes crucial once the guru dies. “Such organizations served only a perfunctory purpose while the guru lives,”said Rajat Narain, former IAS officer and additional general secretary of Shree Shree Anandamayee Sangha, headquartered in Haridwar. “They performed formal duties of clearing payments and things like that.”

Narain has been a devotee of Shree Anandamayee ma for four decades now. “In our case, Shree Anandamayee ma took decisions on all other matters of administration when she was alive,”he said. “How ashrams will be run, and who will do what duties. The organization is not important until the guru is gone.”

Born in the tiny village of Kheora in Bangladesh in 1896, Sree Anandamayee ma’s high-profile devotees included Indira Gandhi and Jamnalal Bajaj among others. She passed away in August 1982, having established a sangha (society), and setting up a chain of 26 ashrams in the country.

The transition was not too difficult. The householder-devotees and the monks of the order took decisions that were in the common interest. Since the monks were unwilling to take charge, the householders took responsibility for running the society. “It went well for several years. The householders ran administration, and the monks and ascetics—who had lived with ma for decades—provided the spiritual guidance to devotees in her absence,” said Narain. But when these monks, revered by the devotees, also began dying out, a crisis loomed.

Some of those in power within the governing body began to regard it as “an organization of the householders, by the householders, for the householders, where ascetics had no place”, Narain said. “But how can that be? Without them, their place may look like an ashram; but it is only a temple.”

Because of this marginalization of the sadhus, many old devotees of ma fear the sangha is declining and the number of visitors to the ashrams dwindling, Narain said.

Struggles for control are not uncommon and may be the reason why the Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission—twin organizations that were formed by the disciples of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa after his death—are run exclusively by monks. The thinking is that monks do not have any vested interest, and their life is committed to spreading the principles of self-realization and service. “It has helped to keep (the) organization agile. They are all committed to one purpose,” said Swami Sarvalokanandji, secretary of the Ramakrishna Mission in Mumbai.

The strategy seems to have worked. More than a century after the demise of its founder, the twin organizations are in robust health, with 176 centres in India and abroad, all of them run on the same set of rules.

Other groups have successfully managed to balance the power equation between monks and householders. For instance, almost 60 years after Sri Ramana Maharshi passed away, the Sri Ramanashram continues to relay his life and messages to devotees across the world.

But it took a while for this equilibrium to be achieved. “Bhagawan Ramana assured his devotees, shortly before leaving his body on April 14, 1950—where can I go? I am always here—yet his devotees did feel lost and desolate. Some left the ashram and even the town, Thiruvannamalai, unable to reconcile themselves to the physical absence of the master,” wrote V.S. Ramanan, president of Sri Ramanashram, in an email response. Sri Ramana’s brother Swami Niranjanananda, who had been running the ashram as manager, passed away in 1953, and his son, T.N. Venkataraman, took over as president.

The ashram’s affairs are being managed by a hereditary trust. “There were many problems initially,”said V.S. Ramanan, grandson of T.N. Venkataraman. “Some old devotees were so upset that they set fire to parts of the ashram after bhagawan’s death and I still don’t understand what made them do it.”

His father faced challenges from within the ashram and without. There were court cases “by certain ambitious people who wanted to gain control of the ashram”, said Ramanan. But then, the old devotees rallied round, helping Venkataraman fight and win the cases.

“To us, it is bhagawan’s will that the ashram is doing well. It’s all a miracle,” said Ramanan.

To the believer, whatever will be, will be. “We are not worried,”said a Sri Sathya Sai Baba devotee who works in the ashram at Puttaparthy. “Whatever happens is the will of Sathya Sai Baba. If he wishes the ashram should prosper, it will. If he doesn’t, it won’t. And that’s the end of that.” priyanka.p@livemint.com --Robbygay (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of what you have written. If you have changes to suggest to the article, please set them out clearly here, giving the source you have used. To ensure your contribution is read, it would be better to limit the number of words you use. Perhaps something like 150 words per point? Rumiton (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

the fact is the statement below is unsupported by the stated references, as true there is rumour claimed, but unsupported in fact the footnotes 26, 28,29,30, merely show there is no foundation for the rumour which is than tantamount to hearsay gossip, does not belong as this slurr is published and expands rumour via a Wikipedia credibility factor. I don't know how to edit this so ask you do it, to clarify the references put no substance to such rumour and Wikipedia are not approving gossip.

Some media reports suggest that suitcases full of money and gold were taken out, but former judge J. Eswara Prasad said: "Since all the contributions to the trust come in the form of cheques, there is no scope for misappropriation"--Robbygay (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

perhaps remove the rumour part totally, as all great men or organisations bear such unfounded slurs. Or say the references do not show any support for such an unfair comment, infact evidence in the stated sources shows the very opposite and Police & Government vigil is inplace.--Robbygay (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know it is a difficult concept to grasp, but Wikipedia editors are not investigators or truth finders. If a reputable source says bags of gold were removed from his quarters then we tell the world that this statement has been made. If another reputable source says that all moneys held were in the form of cheques, and stringent procedures were in place to prevent misappropriation, then we say that this was said. We leave it to the reader to decide which is most likely to be true. Rumiton (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The quoted "Reputable source" as you say does not say "Bags of gold were remove' at all, it says "Reports in a section of vernacular media suggest that suitcases full of money and gold were taken out of Prashanti Nilayam, the ashram of Baba. However, some well-known devotees have denied the reports" User Rumiton please return my edits as wikipedia Editors are permitted to quote the reference correctly, not to take a few words out of context to mislead and turn the unsupported gossip into a derogatory liable as you have now done. Thje claims are not supported by naming the source, or giving any credence to it, the same "reputable source" in fact corrects that by saying "devotees denied the reports" these references do name the "devotees" such as 'Prasad, Bhagvati recently met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to brief him about the activities of the trust and to clear the air in view of the "rumours" is that not enough' to stop you adding to the gossip credential in Wikipedia? The other footnote 28 Seenews again you accept is a "Reputable sources" says "No one is said to have entered Baba’s chamber ever since he was hospitalised on April 28. The keys to the room were with the Baba’s personal caretaker Satyajit, who reportedly handed them over to K Chakravarthi, the secretary of Sathya Sai Central Trust, after Sathya Sai's death on May 24." so why on earth will you accept the unnamed "section of vernacular media suggest" as better authority to then clim it a supported or reliable fact, or even equal value to the named authorities up to Prime Minister which denials you exclude.

No user Rumiton my correction stays as fair reporting of your claimed "Reputable sources" claims & denials, or else please put that in words you approve, as a ikipedia Editor you are not supposed to bend facts by excluding the denials and safeguards surely, so untill you return my more succinct wording, I will add the quotes as you say to let the reader decide what to believe, is that acceptable as this 'Whereas the rumor statement is an unnamed as "Reports in a section of vernacular media suggest that suitcases full of money and gold were taken out of Prashanti Nilayam, the ashram of Baba. However, some well-known devotees have denied the reports" and these references do name the "devotees" such as 'Prasad, Bhagvati recently met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to brief him about the activities of the trust and to clear the air in view of the "rumours" the one footnote evidence here the "Zeenews" says "No one is said to have entered Baba’s chamber ever since he was hospitalised on April 28. The keys to the room were with the Baba’s personal caretaker Satyajit, who reportedly handed them over to K Chakravarthi, the secretary of Sathya Sai Central Trust, after Sathya Sai's death on May 24." i do hope that passes your rules ok'. .--Robbygay (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Liquid assets in his room

In Gold:
1537.15/ounce * 35.2739619 ounces/kg * 98 kg = USD 5,313,694.31 = 23.9 crore INR
In Silver:
307Kg = 10,829 ounces * 35.82/ounce = USD 387,894.78 = 1.75 crore INR
In Cash:
11.56 crore INR = USD 2,568,888.89
Total = 8,270,478 USD = 37.2 crore INR
--Javaweb (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks. Interesting. Andries (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for that information? Rumiton (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Treasure island: Sai Baba's gold trove". Press Trust of India. 17 June 2011.

The calculations used the 17 June 2011 price for gold and silver and the USD <--> INR exchange rate. --Javaweb (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I did not add in the unknown monetary value of the gold jewelry found there.--Javaweb (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

UPDATE: Upon reading more sources, The weight of gold probably already includes the gold contained in gold jewelry. --Javaweb (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

A news.google.com search for sathya sai baba gold silver in the US brings up multiple stories with similar numbers. --Javaweb (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

thanks guys you've justified my complaint about the rumour reported earlier having no foundation in the referenced news stories, hence quoting out of context the suspicions and not the denials was wrongful editing.--Robbygay (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times is an eminently respectable source, and they are reporting that a huge amount of gold and jewels were found in Baba's private room. We can report this alongside the claims that all moneys were held as cheques. Rumiton (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Liquid assets

The graphic in the Telegraph of India story mentions

• precious stones, including diamonds
• 750 saffron and white robes
• 500 pairs of shoes
• Dozens of bottles of perfume and hairspray

--Javaweb (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Btw, the quantity of robes and shoes sounds excessive, but he regularly gave them away to be worshiped by devotees. Andries (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about irregularities

• "Police suspect proper inventory was not carried out at Yajur Mandir". Times of India. June 22, 2011.
• "Rs 5 cr cash seized from Banglore-bound bus". Times of India. June 20, 2011.
• "Sathya Sai Trust's vehicle carrying Rs 35 lakh confiscated". Times of India. June 19, 2011.

--Javaweb (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

This is recent news and hard to interpret. We need to wait until things settle and sources gain more clarity into what has been happening. But thanks for the links. Rumiton (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This should eventually be in Sathya Sai Central Trust, not here. Andries (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly both. He stored the valuables in his room when he was alive and the Trust has been in charge of them since. They should figure in both articles. Rumiton (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for re-deletion of Prema Sai Baba

I am posting this here to inform as many interested authors as possible without doing much effort, because this is the most active talk page and article regarding Sathya Sai Baba related subhjects [14]. This is not a proposal to improve the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that the above article cannot be considered a biography, which is the way it is currently presented. I would favour merging the salient points with this article. If it remains separate, it should be as an example of a religious belief. Rumiton (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody raise a new AFD? Admin does not want to delete it because the old AFD is too long time ago. Please note that the current article is sourced to zero reputable 3rd party sources. Andries (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For a RfD to succeed, attempts have to be made to point up the problems in the article (such as no outside sources.) I have started this process. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx. Andries (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjective conclusion stated as fact

The following subjective conclusion should be omitted or at least explicitly attributed. Also, as I stated before, I think it is more appropriate in the article Sathya Sai Central Trust that is still to be created.

"In a recent development, shady deals, internal strife paint a sorry picture of the Sathya Sai empire [152]"

Andries (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, Wikipedia should not speak in that kind of voice. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

If no one objects, I will remove the neutrality disputed tag. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The article looks the best it has done in a long time. --JN466 11:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rahm

I have reverted a recent edit to the effect that Rahm's case was "unrelated" to his claims of sexual abuse. This is not quite true. The documents concerning Alaya Rahm's case against the Sai Baba Society are available on line from the court at [[15]] and other court pages. Sai Baba being an Indian in India could not be arraigned in a US court. The general category of Property Damage seems to be a peculiarity of the California legal system; the case was for negligence on the part of the Society in arranging and paying for a trip to India for a minor unaccompanied by his parents. It was alleged that since Sai Baba had a long history of abuse accusations against him, that the society had failed in their duty of care in encouraging him to go. The person who actually accompanied him was a Mr Kreydick, who Rahm believed to be a principal of the society. When Kreydick signed a deposition from India that he arranged and financed the trip himself, and was not acting as a principal of the Society, Rahm's case could not proceed. He and the Society dismissed their cases against each other on the same day and document. Devotee websites have trumpeted this result as proof that no abuse ever took place, but it is no such thing. The article already says that no formal charge or conviction has ever been made for abuse. Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. At the CA court site, unless I paid for a transcript, I could only see that it was a "Property Damage-other" case and assumed it was unrelated.

Another question: could a criminal abuse case against S. Sai Baba(SSB) ever been brought to court in California? Any crime would have occurred in India and SSB being an Indian in India could not be arraigned in a US court. If so, a criminal case would have had to be initiated in India where SSB had well-placed devotees in the government. In one word, "jurisdiction?".

--Javaweb (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

As I understand it, any case directly against SSB could only have been brought in India. The situation would have been much as you describe. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumiton, how do you know all this? It sounds plausible. I may have missed something lately. If true, can the court case get removed? I have been saying for years that the court case was insignificant. Andries (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The case was determined because the Sai Baba Society didn't pay for an airline ticket, someone else did. The outcome had nothing to do with SSB's conduct. More importantly, the case's inclusion is also confusing. Its outcome had nothing to with SSB. Neither the court or the plaintiff made any determination about SSB's conduct. The article does not make that clear. --Javaweb (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I would say it is peripherally significant, but "how I know all this" is part of the problem. It involved a lot of original research into a lot of primary documents, and some synthesis, none of which I am qualified to undertake. I would be happy to see the court case disappear from the article also, for lack of reputable sources to tell us about it. Rumiton (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of wp:BRD I have removed that paragraph. Rumiton (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Swamis Age

The avatar was 85. Not 84 because, when God decides to incarnate in this world, it is counted diffrently. Wikipeidia is not precise. The avathars life stars before birth thats why his 85 year bithday was celeberated november 2010.

Consistently in Wikipedia, someone's age is calculated from the date his Mom gave birth being age 0. That is, the duration walking the Earth. --Javaweb (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Experience is better than rumor

I personally experienced supernatural events on a trip to visit Sai Baba that are not part of any magicians repertoire. These include gifts of gold jewelry by total strangers on Sai Babas behalf, telepathic communication and shaktipat. This was not a trick or a ruse. I saw vibhtti manifested and could clearly see his golden aura eminating from his body. I am not trying to do anything than bear witness to the facts as I experienced them and offer that Baba's spirit is kind, his wisdom is deep and his message is pure. Sai Ram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.195.101 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal testimony cannot be used in Wikipedia. You might imagine the mess that would arise if this were not so. We can only work with reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Sathya Sai Baba → Sathya Sai – Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose SSB is the name normally used and every word in this name is a honorific. Sathya means truth or true. Sai means originally saint, but also refers to Shirdi Sai Baba. Baba means father. Andries (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I think his real name was Sathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram. Andries (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But the point is, SSB referred to himself many a times as "Sathya Sai." "Baba" was only an honorific Hindu's add to show respect towards someone. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right that he called himself often "Sathya Sai", but he declared himself a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba (i.e. "Sai Baba") in the 1940s. Sai Baba was the name that stuck. "Sathya" was only added sometimes to distinguish him from Shirdi Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No different than Mother Teresa, Andries and Red Tiger make very good points. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Use the name the man is known by. For example, the Rock Hudson article is not titled "Roy Harold Scherer, Jr". --Javaweb (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
• Oppose Slavish imposition of Wikipedia rules in cases like this is counterproductive. Rumiton (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; it's the most common name used in high-quality sources. --JN466 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus seems clear. I suggest the article be dropped from the list of suggested/contested moves. Rumiton (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sathya Sai Baba as a controversial figure

I suggest a following edition of the first sentence of the preamble.
Śri Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయిబాబా), born as Sathyanarayana Raju (23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus. He was a spiritual figure, mystic, philanthropist, and educator.
My suggestion is based on the following sources:

• The Economist

Sathya Sai Baba (Satyanarayana Raju), one of India’s most controversial gurus, died on April 24th, aged 85 http://www.economist.com/node/18678803

• India Today

As India's most enduring god-man enters his 75th year, his spirituality rests uneasily with controversy.

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20001204/cover.shtml

• The Gardian

But though revered by millions around the world as a living god, he was a controversial figure, criticised by some as a fraud protected by political influence. His later years were dogged by allegations of sexual abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies

• The Telegraph

Sathya Sai Baba, who died yesterday, probably aged 84, was India's most famous, and most controversial, Swami or holy man, and one of the most enigmatic and remarkable religious figures of the last century.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/8471342/Sathya-Sai-Baba.html

• The BBC

To his devotees, Sai Baba was an avatar, an incarnation of God in human form, who appeared on Earth to preach his inspirational message in one of India's poorest corners.

To his critics, he was a fraudster dogged for years by controversial allegations of sexual abuse yet protected from prosecution by virtue of his powerful political sway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13153536

• Time

He was also accused of faking miracles and of being a sexual predator. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2068080,00.html

• CBS News

Sai Baba was also mired in controversies, with several news reports about allegations of sexual abuse and fake miracles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/24/501364/main20056844.shtml

• The New York Times

Rationalist critics led campaigns against him, calling him a charlatan and his miracles fake. And several news reports accused him of sexually abusing followers — accusations that he denied, and for which he was never charged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/asia/25saibaba.html?_r=1

• India Express

From ordinary believers to the President of India, his clout spread far and wide but controversy also followed Puttaparthi Sathya Sai Baba all along.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/who-was-sathya-sai-baba/780598/

• The Los Angeles Times

After declaring himself the reincarnation of a Hindu saint in 1940 he built a loyal following, including politicians, and celebrities, despite allegations of sexual abuse.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-sathya-sai-baba-20110425

I am not an experienced Wikipedia user and I am not sure if I need to include all these links into the final text to support this statement. I will be happy if someone can do it for me.--Open 2 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this change would be an improvement. We already have The materializations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches by Sathya Sai Baba were a source of both fame and controversy... in the lead, and the article does not shy away from the sexual allegations. Adding...one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus in the first sentence seems an over-emphasis. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, you seem to be right but on the other hand, Sathya Sai Baba's fame and controversy is not based exclusively on so called materializations. Fame and controversy can be found in practically any aspect of his life and teachings: his divine claims, his relationships with his students and devotees, his omniscience and omnipotence, his charity projects and so on. I agree that materializations are a special feature that makes SSB special among other Indian gurus. But his fame and controversy are far more general characteristic. That is why, I dare to think it might be an improvement, provided that the sentence about materializations is edited to escape repetition.--Open 2 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The summary should state why he was controversial (mainly materializations and sexual abuse), otherwise it is not very informative. By the way, his teachings were not controversial, but it is true there were many reasons why he was controversial. Andries (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. I think the summary should give the main points which are elaborated in the corresponding sections of the article. I agree that "controversial" may be not quite correct word for his teachings. At least, they are eclectic and not coherent - a loose mixture of dvaita and advaita.--Open 2 (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this version for the lead? Are there any objections?

Śri Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయిబాబా), born as Sathyanarayana Raju (23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011[4][5]) was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus. He was a spiritual figure, mystic, philanthropist, and educator.[6] He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi, a spiritual saint and miracle worker who died in 1918 and whose teachings were an eclectic blend of Hindu and Muslim beliefs.[4][7][8][9][10][11][12] The particular feature of Sathya Sai Baba was materializations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches [13] Photos of him are displayed in millions of homes and on the dashboards of cars, and lockets bearing his photo are worn by many as a symbol of good fortune.[14] He started a number of charity projects including drinking water supply schemes, schools, colleges and hospitals. His discourses are collected and published in the series of books "Sathya Sai Speaks".

The phrase "and his followers believed him to be" was omitted because it sounds like surplus information. It is quite obvious that his devotees believe his claims.--Open 2 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I cannot see this as better than what we have. [SSB] was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus is not a finished sentence, and it seems to imply that guruhood in India is no longer happening. It needs to say "of the 20th century" or "of all time" or something, and only a foolish source would go out on a limb to say that as it would be quite unprovable. And if SSB was "one of" these controversial gurus, then who are the others? Also the role of "spiritual figure, mystic" and arguably, "philanthropist and educator" are parts of the guru's job description, so the terms are redundant. The sentence starting "The particular feature" doesn't make much sense either. Sorry, but quite a lot of work has gone into this lead from a number of editors, so any change needs to be a clear improvement. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the current lead is a result of a long work but I hate thinking that it is the only reason why you think that it cannot be better.
(1) I can't see why the phrase [SSB] was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus is not a finished sentence. And by no means it implies that guruhood is no longer happening in Inida. Rather it implies that guruhood and holiness are two different things.
(2) It needn't to say "of the 20th century" or "of all time" because both implications are quite correct about SSB. This opinion should not be proved as the terms like 'famous' or 'controversial' are mere opinions. But the fact is that this opinion is widely spread and it is worthy to be mentioned in Wikipedia as a fact.
(3) You ask about other controversial gurus. I cannot believe that you do not know any. Nevertheless, here are some examples: Blavatskaya, Osho (Rajneesh), Adi Da, Muktananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc. (to find more you can use Google search)
(4) You write that the terms "spiritual figure, mystic", "philanthropist and educator" are redundant when they are used together with the term "guru". But that is what is in the current version of the lead. It was not my addition.
(5) You write "The sentence starting "The particular feature" doesn't make much sense either". Why not?
(6) You did not mention the phrase I omitted: "and his followers believed him to be". Does it sound sensible?
Sorry, but I haven't been able to see your arguments.--Open 2 (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ad (6). I strongly agree that the phrase "and his followers believed him to be" should be removed. It is redundant and bordering on the ridiculous. A guru who is not believed by his followers is not a guru.

I think the summary/lead is too short. What should be added is the following:
a. explicit unambigous claims of divinity
b. that he was controversial, not only for materializations but also because of sexual abuse allegations
c. nearly all that is known about him is derived from Kasturi's hagiography
d. teachings: eclectic mainstream hinduism presented as ecumenical (uniting different religions) Andries (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "and his followers believed him to be" can be deleted. I will take it out now. Your other points are not so easily remedied, but we can discuss them. Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba's claims of divinity and avatarhood

This is a collection of quotations which may help those who are editing this article. The original texts can be found by the date of the discourse in "Sathya Sai Speaks" (also on-line) or "Sanathana Sarathi" (monthly).

• I will be in this mortal body form for 59 years more and I shall certainly achieve the purpose of this Avatar, do not doubt it.

29.09.1960

• Make the best use of this chance when the Lord has come in human form to your very door and get ready to save yourself from disaster.

26.02.1961

• The establishement of Dharma is my aim, the teaching of Dharma, the spread of Dharma - that is my object.

13.12.1964

• You must convince yourselves that all forms are Sai's; all names are Sai's. There is no rest; all are he. ...

So I am teaching that no distinction should be made between the names Rama, Krishna, Iswara, Sai for they are all my names. ... You can observe me and my activities; note how I adhere to righteousness, moral order, truth and Universal compassion. That is what I desire you to learn from me. Many of you plead for "messages" from me to take to the Samithi of which you are members. Well, my life is my message. ... This is the first time that a world conference is held of persons devoted, while the incarnation is present before every one, with the body assumed for this purpose, bearing the name that is chosen for it by itself. I must tell you this fact, because ninety nine out of hundred among you do not know my reality. ... This is human form in which every Divine Entity, every Divine Principle, that is to say, all the names and forms ascribed by man to God are manifest. ... You are very fortunate that you have a chance to experience the bliss of the vision of the Sarvadaivatha Swaroopam (the Form, which is all Forms of all Gods) now in this life itself.
17.05.1968 (First World Conference, Bombay)

• I am Sarvantharyami, Sarvasaktha and Sarvajna. Nevertheless, I do not manifest these powers in any capricious manner and merely for display. For I am am example and an inspiration, whatever I do or omit to do. My life is a commentary on my message.

11.10.1970

• There can be no limit for Sai Sakthi, no hindrance, no opposition or obstacle. You may believe it or not but Sai Sakthi can transform earth into sky, the sky into earth.

22.11.1970

• This is the best time to tell you something about authenticity of this advent. I am saying this, not for establishing a claim for superiority, or importance for this body; I only wish to communicate the truth. there are many who cannot bear or tolerate the splendor that I am manifesting, the Divinity that is expressed in every act, the wonders and amazing happenings that are the result of the Grace; these people label these acts as acts of mesmerism, or miracles or fears of magic. They hope to bring them down in the estimation of people. Let me tell you this; mine is no mesmerism, miracle or magic. Mine is genuine Divine Power.

25.12.1970

• The Sai Principle, Sai Divinity can never be affected by any slander, it can never be shaken by any tactics, its progress can never be halted. Do not play heed to the barkings you hear.

10.06.1974

• As days pass, even those who are now not able to recognise the truth of Swami will have to approach with tears of repentance and experience me. Very soon, this will be worldwide. Swami is now restraining this development. When once it is allowed to manifest, the whole world will be transformed into Prashanthi Nilayam.

23.11.1982

• You will see in due course that even the blind will declare: "Swami is God".

31.07.1996
--Open 2 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Open 2 I see you are a new Wikipedia editor and this is the first article you have tried to edit. Let me say Welcome to Wikipedia, but let me also respectfully suggest you gain some experience by starting with some less disputed articles than this one. I particularly suggest you read the Guideline on sources. All the above quotes you have supplied are from primary sources, which are not acceptable to Wikipedia. We need to look at what reputable secondary sources say about the subject, not what the subject said about himself. It is especially important that what we editors feel we know about the subject or related subjects, counts for nothing. If you need any help in coming to terms with these and similar requirements, please let me know. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your concern about the quality of the Wikipedia articles but in this case I am afraid you are not quite correct. Primary sources are acceptable in Wikipedia.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

It is especially true for biographies. What can be a more reliable source about person's outlook, views and claims than their own words. But we should be careful with regard to OR.

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

In our case of SSB his discourses published in the form of books are the most reliable published source for Sathya Sai Baba's claims. That does not mean we should take all his claims for the plain truth. Here independent sources are of utmost importance.--Open 2 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no benefit in using primary sources for this article, though they may be helpful for the neglected article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Using primary sources is like opening a can of worms which should be done only if it has big benefits. Claims of divinity are also treated in secondary sources, so these quotes have no added value. These listed quotes are a good addition to be be copied to Wikiquote. Thanks for that. Andries (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Andries. SSB is no longer living, but this article still impacts on millions. To allow any editor to cherry pick quotes from primary sources to support their personal opinion would not just be a can of worms, it would be radioactive. There is no shortage of good secondary sources, and if any part of the article needs expanding, we can use them. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By no means I meant to use all those quotations in the article. Rather they can be used as a reference material for evaluating secondary sources. Some secondary sources make contradictory or flawed statements on SSB's divinity claims, his mission and his teachings. They also may be used to support the statements in the article. Again I would like to emphasize the point that published discourses of SSB are not primary sources strictly speaking. His real words are. And we can be sure that those published discourses are the most reliable secondary source for what SSB's words are. But we cannot give full credit to what SSB says. Here we need the third-party opinions and views to evaluate his words. Anyway, I am glad that those quotations can be useful.--Open 2 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary material can not, must not, and will not be used "for evaluating secondary sources." That is the job of a researcher, and Wikipedia editors are not researchers. Our job is to revue the work of researchers, assess their reliability and reputation for fact checking, and the significance of their conclusions against the work of others, and include them in the article if they are considered important enough. I can only urge you again to try to get more experience in Wikipedia editing before you step up for an article as difficult and controversial as this one. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton and Andries. --JN466 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Rumiton. I have repeatedly omitted using secondary sources that are clearly erroneous i.e. both contradicting primary sources and all other secondary sources. This included claims of divinity for this article. Andries (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to open old wounds Andries, but perhaps your practice of forming your own opinions from personal experience and primary sources, then rejecting secondary sources who did not agree with you might have contributed to your stormy editing history here? Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton, I humbly ask you to stop squeezing me out of this article. I have not vandalised the article, I have not even touched it until today. Is my only fault that I have made too many suggestions? I hope they have not been all useless.--Open 2 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)