The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Sathya Sai Baba is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
The recently added section "Anomalies and possible unnatural death" contains misinformation, based on short-lived rumors and conspiracy theories. Please remove the section. Anuradha Rao (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALL information is properly sourced and cited. the times of India, Indian express and other sources are reliable and credible.
the title accurately depicts the content. anomalies in the narrative provided by the police, ashram, trust and other agencies in relation to what information was printed or reported on.
much like the murders at ashram. facts, narratives and official stories don't add up. yet the various pieces of information are reported and documented. why don't you take down that page?
just because its been 13 years and things have been brushed aside and washed cleaned doesn't mean these events weren't reported on.
they appeared in the times of India.
this section does not reflect conspiracy theories but reported on events.
there is a "criticism " section is there not? why are those "events" or conspiracy theories not removed? some scenarios are plain redundant, willful character assassination and unproven lies. yet the section exists.
why? because it was written about and played a role in the information surrounding Sai Baba. although irrelevant or dated or based on opinion, it was written about.
as were the anomalies and pieces of information contrary to the "official narrative".
the section, as the "criticism" section, provides cited information that appeared in reputable news outlets and has a place, is relevant and although, difficult to swallow without getting emotional, it was written about.
your passions and emotions dont take precedent.
section is well cited, properly cited and from credible sources.
All misinformation and conspiracy theories on the page need to go, and not just the Anamolies.. section. Why are we hounding someone who spent every moment for the upliftment of humanity? It is not about editors'/readers' passions and emotions, but about truth and facts which a Wikipedia article should stick to, isn't it? Anuradha Rao (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sai Baba’s virtues, divinity comment and unfettered devotion to serving humanity is not in question.
The times of India and various other sources are, according to Wikipedia, reliable and credible. Criticism section, like I said, has events that are unproven and most likely untrue BUT still are reported on.
Therefore, when correctly cited and worded, appear in Wikipedia.
Same with this section.
if you feel all these sections should be removed then the “issue” is with you and your view, not the way it is presented - which as I have stated and also agreed by the person who Undid your edits - which is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. J929 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please review previous talk page issues. most importantly the criticism section and see how much effort and time, consensus and argument went into getting a phrasing that would satisfy everyone.
try to edit the criticism section and you will find warnings not to edit certain parts because of these efforts...
that being said, emotional responses and opinions of what wikipedia is or is not does not justify removing a section - one that is well cited, sourced and worded. J929 (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page reads much better now than it did earlier, thanks to the efforts.
Some of the cited sources in Anomalies part have attributed quotes to unnamed/unverifiable sources and have a speculative tone than factual reporting. Unilateral claims, reactions, rumors and speculation can be condensed into a few lines than given so much prominence. Anuradha Rao (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the information is correctly cited from credible sources. If condensed and left unsourced, it will then look like a story/speculation etc.
You can condense the part and still cite the sources.
The problem is not with the citations but giving disproportionate space to ephemeral speculative reports arising in the wake of the confusion following the demise of the Guru. Anuradha Rao (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a paragraph from the article, citing "Gunnar Otis, professor of psychology, University of Reykjavik" as an authority, from a book by Paul William Roberts. The encounter between Roberts and "Gunnar Otis" is said to have taken place in 1976, but the University of Reykjavik was founded in 1998. No professor of psychology with that name has ever existed in Iceland. 147.161.214.97 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is from POV of detractors of Sathya Sai Baba. Negative content (including unproven allegations, and unverified claims) is being highlighted and disproportionally magnified to form the bulk of the article. Anything positive, though it is all in the public domain, and even when we provide appropriate citations, is being duly removed. Clearly there is bias. In short, it appears as though the article exists only to malign the subject. Please advise how we can go about such that it truly looks like an encyclopedic article that contains facts and information pertaining to the subject, with a proportionate section of criticism and allegations. This, generally, is the format followed in case of most biographies, and most articles on Wikipedia. Anuradha Rao (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the article reads like an opinion section in western media. We are not allowed to include responses and clarifications to the one-sided claims. Anuradha Rao (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Documentaries and videos against Sathya Sai Baba are allowed as citations and also included in the article, but documentaries that are not against him are considered as promotional content. If positive documentaries are considered promotional, then negative documentaries should be considered as propaganda and they should not be allowed as well. We are not allowed to even cite real videos of Sathya Sai Baba's discourses in a supposedly Wikipedia page of Sathya Sai Baba. Even as much as a mention about his teaching of Love All, Serve all in the lead section was taken off saying it is promotional. Anuradha Rao (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of words:
Assertive language like "testimonies", "accused", "reported" are used while referring to one-sided allegations, speculative/defamatory media articles and other negative content, indicating that they are indisputable truths.
Whereas words like "attributed", "claimed", "hagiography" are used in reference to positive experiences of devotees indicating that they are all made up.
The Trust comprises eminent personalities from high positions who are chosen basis of seniority, experience and integrity. However, the page contains falsehoods and content has been added without verification. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your edits appear to be in bad faith, like accusation changed to allegation. There is a comment in the article that says that which of those two to use has already been discussed on the talk page though it really should give a good link to this discussion. You have changed the word, contrary to the note, yet retained that comment implying that the agreed upon word is allegation not accusation. At most, only one of those two words can be the agreed upon word. It's possible that neither word was agreed upon. It's up to you to now to provide the proof that allegation is the agreed word or you will have made a false statement by leaving in that comment.
You are also complaining that people are not allowing you to make edits backed up with citations but it looks to me that you have removed statements that included citations so you are doing that which you claim is the wrong thing to do. If you do not believe statements are factual then you can by all means provide contrary evidence but you are not providing any good reason for removing these statements and their citations. Please extend the same courtesy to others about not removing statements with citations that you are demanding others extend to you unless there is a valid reason to remove them.
I am passingly familiar with some of the teachings of SSSB and it seems to me he said he doesn't need you to defend him against calumny and you are simply dragging yourself down in the muck. Wikipedia is not a place to proselytise your religion and your bias is evident and is strongly colouring your edits on this page. I plan to revert some of your most recent changes and there appear to be revisions by you that also need to be reverted. Waerloeg (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide examples of bias and proselytizing in my edits, so I can meditate on your feedback.
The citation I removed was wrt the non-factual line that said Trust does not reveal details about the funds or names of trustees. I have provided reason for the same, the annual reports are there on the trust website for all to download, and also the names of the trustees, you can check. How does this come come across as bias or proselytizing? Sathya Sai Baba did teach us a few things. Mentioning them comes under bias or proselytizing? He did say I want people to be true to their own faiths - mentioning this makes one biased? CIA did get worried which is why the secret report. Mentioning it makes one biased? He was not charged in a court of law, only exceptional cases of press stories. Thereby editing "accusation" to "allegation" makes one biased? I checked the dictionary again, allegation is the word here.
However, the only reason I am given when my citations are removed is - "it is promotional content".
I am not here to defend Sathya Sai Baba, who does not need a Wikipedia page, much less anyone to defend him or proselytise. Moreover hinduism does not work by proselytising, as you would already know, perhaps.
I am using my real name, revealing my identity and not hiding my leanings. I'm here after noticing glaring factual discrepancies and speculation in encyclopedic content. This is not mainstream media or social media or individual opinion. Basic verification, and a fair way of presenting is needed before publishing one-sided allegations, and supported by appropriate disclaimers where needed. I couldn't care less if Sathya Sai Baba did not have a Wikipedia page. But if it does, it should, in all fairness, look like one and contain information about Sathya Sai Baba and his teachings, including but not limited to criticism.
Putting information about Sathya Sai Baba on a Sathya Sai Baba article is not promotion or proselytising! It's not my fault that he has done a lot of good to mankind. I am not promoting him, I am stating facts when I mention a few of them (which I did yet in a controlled, restrained and understated way, aware that editors will most likely delete it). What should we do then? Stay away or come to this page to only downplay SSB and criticize? Anuradha Rao (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about the murder accusation; this is not properly sourced on the article. On the article, this line appears "accusations against Sathya Sai Baba by his critics over the years have included sleight of hand, sexual abuse, money laundering, fraud in the performance of service projects, and murder". The accusations of sexual abuse and sleight of hand are well sourced on the article. I can find no confirmed references on the article supporting the murder allegation or money laundering.
This article from BBC News is listed as a reference for these latter allegations [1] but this is obviously WP:OR as the source does not mention anything about money laundering or murder. We can use that source for the other allegations but not murder. I suggest that we review this. The only other source listed for the murder allegation is "Palmer, Norris W. "Baba's World". In: Forsthoefel, Thomas A. (2005)." I may have to track this source down. No page numbers are given. Veg Historian (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the Palmer source [2] from a library, let me report back here when I have read it. The book was written in 2005 when Sathya Sai Baba was still alive. Ok update. there is only 1 mention of murder here it is:
"Shri Satya Sai Baba is not without his critics. While a number of detractors see him as little more than a harmless fraud, duping naive masses by sleight of hand, others have leveled charges against him that are significantly more substantial—money laundering, fraudulent service projects, child molestation, and murder". page 116 Veg Historian (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coverage in depth to the charge of murder in the book but it is mentioned on p. 116. Considering this source is an WP:RS the content should remain on the article. Ignore part of my first comment, we do have an WP:RS that supports the murder charge which I have cited above. The BBC News article does not cover this though. Veg Historian (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking this up. This brings us to the question, how do we handle a query, if there is a WP.RS indeed, but that WP.RS does not substantiate an argument enough for someone to treat it as a valid argument - meaning the source is qualified, but the argument falls short of even minimum detail to help us understand it further. Anuradha Rao (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
