Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Why there is no mention of his family?

Does he have a wife, kids? Why there is no mention of his family? 176.33.65.11 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

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)

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.

it holds the same place as the criticism section. J929 (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sai Baba’s virtues, divinity comment and unfettered devotion to serving humanity is not in question.

The section is well sourced, properly cited, and correctly quoted J929 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

All the information is correctly cited from credible sources. If condensed and left unsourced, it will then look like a story/speculation etc.

which will not hold up to Wikipedia standards and decrease the quality of the page. J929 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Gunnar Otis, not a real person

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)

From what I’ve been able to find (ie. nothing), no person with that name has ever existed on Earth. 🆃🆁🆂™ 08:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

state your efforts, resources and documented sources... J929 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

How do you propose I present documented proof of non-existence? – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 20:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The two Gunnar Otis references I have been able to find are relatively recent appearances on the internet. One mention is of a pre-teen Gunnar Otis from Texas, mentioned as a surviving family member in an obituary from 2016, the text of which is reprinted verbatim in several random online obituary aggregators. The second mention - and possibly referring to the very same Gunnar Otis - is a 5th Grade "Honor Roll"-type list mention in 2024 - apparently young Gunnar Otis achieved all A's and B's in the first nine weeks of the school year. It is logically safe to assume that this child Gunnar Otis of today is not our purported 1976 Gunnar Otis. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 20:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Unable to include facts on this page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

• I have access to the Palmer source 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)

• 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)

I added the page number and quote Veg Historian (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

The source is reliable but WP:UNDUE may come into this if there is no additional verification. I have been looking through academic books and newspaper reports. I cannot find any additional WP:RS to substantiate the murder allegation. There is no detail about it. Something may turn up but I am not seeing anything so far. Veg Historian (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. So would it mean that we can take off the murder bit from the article (and money laundering?) as they are not substantiated? There was never money laundering allegations even from his strongest of critics as far as I know who have agreed on the public welfare work done. Anuradha Rao (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Per policy those two allegations could probably be removed because they are not supported by additional WP:RS and we have no verification. I cannot find any mention of money laundering or murder anywhere in any other source. It is possible the author made a mistake. The other allegations however are well sourced in many references. Veg Historian (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for researching this in detail for us. I will go ahead and make those edits. Meanwhile please also advise on the accusation/allegation disagreement. Request you to review my viewpoint that 'allegation' is the more accurate word at least in the context of the sexual abuse. May be passingly okay to use 'accusation' interchangeably in the context of sleight of hand. Thanks, again. Anuradha Rao (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Edits" by Zalaraz

The Sathya Sai Baba page took years to build up. These agreements took a long time to achieve (one can still see hidden notes in the criticism section) as well as a foundation for the pages lay out to be solidified. Two sections stand out for this, the introduction and the criticism section.

Headings and banners pertaining to multiple issues plagued the page for years but with effort the article grew up to par as per Wikipedia standards.

Zalaraz's recent slew of edits (erasing paragraphs and "summarizing" key events) does not help this page at all.

Under the umbrella of the “removing promotional content“ theme/narrative, well sourced and relevant information is being erased.

4 TOPICS/EDITS OF DISCUSSSION

1. removing Sai Baba's exacts words and replacing them with "and left his home for religious cause." Poorly written, vague, terrible grammar and incongruent with the pages nature. Considering this is the lead sentence, how does this improve the page - at all?

2. removing "promotional material". the information that zalaraz removed was from a university press and therefor a legitimate and reliable source according to wikipedia standards. the editor removed this on their own and reverted attempts to undue this vandalism without consensus or looking at the talk pages.

3. lying about “removing unneeded trivia“. Zalaraz says they removed unneeded trivia while in fact, looking at the edit itself, one can easily see zalaraz was simply removing disconnected links and legitimate source material after their previous edits. It seems there were red links in the article and instead of addressing or cleaning up the page, they simply removed them. Again, another level of vandalism.

4. removing devotees counter points to allegations against Sai Baba. As these allegations were never proven, no charges ever laid and Sai Baba himself addressed their nature, the initial "criticism" were in fact an opinion and in order to balance these allegations a sentence or two is in order to balance the section and tone of the article. Removing these statements creates a one sided view that destroys any neutrality.

EXPANSION and FURTHER DISCUSSION of ISSUES

1. edit - "and left his home for religious cause.[7][8][9]" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? Who said that? Where is this phrasing printed or discussed? Zalaraz left the sources from the previous quote of "and left his home saying "My devotees are calling me, I have my work".[6][7][8]", in the newly edited page. why? NONE THESE SOURCES SAY "he left for religious cause" What is this religious cause zalaraz is talking about? It is a vague, ambiguous and inflated yet completely ungrounded statement.

It is terrible English as well, grammatically. It makes no sense yet to Zalaraz this is an improvement? This helps the article? how? Now add to the fact IT IS the very first sentence of the page, it shows the scope and nature of these edits. This is low level vandalism, poor english and a very skewed notion of summarization.

What is this "religious cause"? When did Sai Baba say this? What did he say exactly (and thats the point - this is a bad attempt to paraphrase or summarize a very important statement in the life of this figure)? What did he mean by religious cause? What did he do for "religious cause"? Zalaraz gives no specifics (or correct intelligible english) YET the original wikipedia version held specific and precise words -with meaning and context- to this person‘s biography. Zalaraz reduced it to a simple nonsensical poorly written, half English jumble of syllables.

All spiritual figures have some defining moment or publicly known event that changes their direction or trajectory in life and/or their mission and that is what this statement did. Sai Baba saying that he has work to do, etc., etc. is a defining moment in this person‘s life.

These statements are noted, written down and discussed because it is a change from the Sathyanarayana; the 14-year-old boy, into Sathya Sai Baba, the adult personna. Considering the global and personal changes this person created for himself, as well as others, this is a very important statement and turning point. So why remove it? and worse, why replace it with jibberish nonsense? "religious cause"???? im guessing english is not zalaraz's native tongue.

Look at Ramana Maharshi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi -his biography in Wikipedia also states his personal experiences from his childhood and his normal life, and how that led to his awakening. The definite change from the old person he was, to the new dynamic being he became. That is also in the beginning section of that Wikipedia statement. "at the age of 16, he had a "death-experience" in which he became aware of a "current" or "force" (avesam) which he recognised as his true "I" or "self",[web 1][5] and which he later identified with "the personal God, or Iswara",[web 1]" The equivalent of the Zalaraz interpretation/edits would be "he felt religious feeling and saw something different".

Ramakrishna in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna says, "His parable-based teachings advocated the essential unity of religions and proclaimed that world religions are "so many paths to reach one and the same goal".[6] He is regarded by his followers as an avatar (divine incarnation).[7]" These exact words attest to his philosophy and outward look, yet is that not a promotion to his teachings? Or should the page be edited to "he had religious view and many paths are religious cause"?

Is the absurdity of this statement (religious cause) beginning to be understood? And how it makes no sense and holds no place in this article - especially in the very first sentence!! It is a straight downhill nonsensical poorly written half English testament to nothing.

Look at Lemmy Kilmister wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmy - the first paragraphs in his Wikipedia page, "A foundational force in the genre following the advent of the new wave of British heavy metal, Lemmy was known for his appearance, which included his signature friendly mutton chops, his military-influenced fashion sense and his gravelly rasp of a voice. It was once declared "one of the most recognisable voices in rock".[1] He was also noted for his unique posture when singing, which was once described as "looking up towards a towering microphone tilted down into his weather-beaten face".[2]"

A recognizable voice in rock ‘n’ roll? Why are these descriptions in the lead and not in the "influences" or "biography" or "career" or "personal" sections? Is this not a form of promotion? Telling people how his voice is iconic? Yet the article is well sourced and quoted, hence it stands.

Maybe Zalaraz should try editing that page.

Nowhere in these supporting/referenced articles does it say that he left his house for religious cause. Zalaraz didn't read the supporting articles yet felt to leave them into validate the term "religious cause"?

PLEASE!!! Notice the bad grammar and English at the very onset. Instead of reading that Sai Baba said that his devotees are waiting and left his worldly life, all of that was replaced with he left for "religious reason"......??

? What does that even mean? Where does any article/newspaper reliable source say that? These reliable sources alluded to by the reference numbers 7/8/9 behind the original quote were precisely that. References for specific facts and words and events.

These well documented and reliably sourced words were replaced with some kind of bad English jibberish in an attempt to do what? Summarize? Paraphrase? Please explain.

2. removing "promotional material"

Zalaraz says the previous version of the introduction was "Promotional". Please explain the premise of these edits, it’s a sweeping statement and definitely needs clarification.

According to wikipedia.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

What part of the introduction is promotional, propaganda? Advertising, showcasing? Advocacy, recruitment?

Is it self promotion? Did Sai baba edit this himself - considering he’s been dead for years now? Did someone put a laptop beside his grave and he made the edits himself? What company is being promoted? Publicity? For what? is this PR?

Initially the section started/read as "By virtue of his sizeable influence, many feel Sai Baba provides an example of "the phenomenon referred to as mahagurus; that is, gurus with a global reach."[27]

Why was this removed? Where was the "promotional material" in this statement? Did Zalaraz read the university paper/book that they so readily deleted? I’m guessing no.

It is a university publisher a reliable source? yes.

Is it impartial? Yes! The paper discusses the phenomenon of the Sai Baba organization and movement how it is exuberant and expands on a scale of global proportion. It shows the macro/global version of a movement and how it integrates itself into a culture, society, system and world view. From an anthropological standpoint, this is a very important part. Did you read the article? (no) The CIA itself reported in its release that the organization is expanding beyond comprehension via the social, financial, belief systems within India and abroad. The CIA operative said himself that it is a global phenomenon, likening it to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Now, considering the global movement is being acknowledged worldwide, this indeed is a macro effect, and considering the large nature of the organization, and it’s outreach (hospitals, universities, water projects are a big social outreach), this is an important part of the lead in that it differentiates the organization's movement from other smaller, more localized movements. It is a global phenomenon. Prove it otherwise.

As this was discussed in the university press book, the CIA papers as well as many other documents, where is the promotional aspect in this? What’s being sold? Is there an agenda? Or are these well sourced and reliable documents? Yet this was completely removed? This is vandalism, plain and simple. Zalaraz didnt actually research what "promotional" means in the Wikipedia guide and use it as a blanket statement to remove whatever they "felt" needed to be removed. The article wasn't pruned, it was simply hacked up, parts/ pieces/reliable sources removed etc..

A summary of the book reads "Gurus in America provides an excellent introduction to the guru phenomenon in the United States, with in-depth analyses of nine important Hindu gurus-Adi Da, Ammachi, Mayi Chidvilasananda, Gurani Anjali, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Sai Baba, and Swami Bhaktivedanta." Considering the scope of the book, it accurately portrays a global aspect of these gurus/spiritual figures.

It is not promotional. zalaraz never discussed or elaborated on how or why it was promotional. As well, they did not read any of the articles or source materials or "religious cause" wouldnt be a part of the page.

The article was properly written with reliable/credible sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically , which wikipedia rule is this not following and why? Please explain, with direct links and wording to wikipedia guidelines.

3. 01;46 March 23, 2026 zalaraz's edit for “removing unneeded trivia“ was in fact zalaraz removing references that were 100% valid, reliable and properly sourced and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

After the previous edits, it seems these disconnected links/references were now a 'red linked' eye sore for the current version. S0, in order to hide their tracks, zalaraz removed all existing (well sourced) document links/references. Since they were no longer connected to anything (because of the previous edits) zalaraz simply got rid of them.

That is in some sense, a level of vandalism. Instead of trying to streamline or prune the article to help it, zalaraz simply removed content. When the problem/red text showed up in other parts of the article as disconnected links/references, instead of trying to clean things up, zalaraz tried to sweep it all under the rug.

Zalaraz then even lied about the reasons for the edits, saying they removed “unneeded trivia“ .... the edit Zalaraz made under that description, simply removed all the existing and now dislocated and disconnected article references - no trivia was removed.

The amount of thought that seems to have went into this seems to be the same amount of thought that went into their version of using “promotional material“ to remove well sourced information, it makes as much sense as Sai baba leaving his home for "religious cause".

Please explain why removing disconnected links and references is "removing unneeded trivia".

4. Zalaraz removed the counter arguments to the accusations in the opening section saying "It is inconsequential as to what his followers think of these accusations, writing them in the same breadth as the widespread accusations risks portraying them as equally significant" - and just undid an edit by Anuradha Rao for this same "reason" - stating he needs consensus in the talk to undo their edits....???

Reading the archived talk of the Sathya Sai Baba page (did zalaraz read these talks??) - seems like no) and it comes up clearly that this topic was highly debated and an agreement finally came about to how to create a balanced and well sourced opening paragraph to address the concerns from both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_13

If nothing was ever proven then it is, in fact, still an opinion. Yes, there are reliable sources that document these allegations but is it a fact? The topic is discussed so therefore; with these credible sources, it is mentioned and elaborated on as a good neutral page or article should be. This was discussed in the times of India, the Deccan Herald and other international newspapers, so it was included in the article. So why is it removed as inconsequential?

Yet so are the rebuttals. The devotee's reasons for why these allegations were made are equally as valid as the allegations themselves. Considering the CIA themselves said that the movement could be undone by convincingly proving that Sai Baba was a fraud is a big red flag to these initial allegations. Did you read the CIA article? (im guessing "no" - again)

Sai Baba himself even addressed these concerns saying,-- "in those days there was one Judas, but today there are thousands."[181] Addressing the allegations, he said that out of jealousy, hate and fear, many devotees were being bought to speak against him, having been offered money to say nasty things.[181] -- so this is a well documented pushback from Sai Baba himself.

But to Zalaraz, it’s an inconsequential opinion? Yet the allegations are not? Considering they were never proven... In order to create a balance page, both sides must be given weight. According to Wikipedia standards and protocol, both must be sourced properly, and they are. So why were they erased? This is simply Zalaraz's opinion on things and they simply erased well sourced and reliable information. If the overall information about these criticism is trite and useless, then simply erase all of it. And yes, CIA documents alluding at proving Sai Baba to be a fraud ARE equally important to the page as the allegations themselves as they provide a context to these allegations.

Again, how are these opinions? These are all well sourced / referenced points in line with Wikipedia standards and discussed in length in the talk pages.

Please explain how not presenting two opposing views is not balanced and how one side is inconsequential and devalidates the other side.

ENDING POINTS OF CONCERN AND ATTENTION

1.zalaraz did not explain how these sections or facts were promotional in any way. the Wikipedia page for promotional material was included as someone had to do the work for zalaraz.

2. the edits were terrible. zalaraz made terrible English because they make good religious cause (example of cacophonic English). Apologies if English isnt zlaraz's first language but seriously, its terrible.

3. zalaraz lied about the nature of their edits when they said “removed unneeded trivia“. They didn’t remove trivia, they removed well sourced links and references to cover their previous edits.

4. Zero attempt was made to read the existing articles or talk pages. These articles (and how they were originally put together) comes from months/years of work from multiple editors. Consensus, cooperation and agreements, created the dynamic and structure for the opening paragraphs. As can be seen in the current hidden messages in the criticism section.

5. these edits were at best a drawn out level of vandalism. All edits were made against factual statements that were all properly sourced, verified and documented.

CONCLUSION

These initial contributions, edits and the templates for the lead paragraphs were created years ago by multiple editors to promote a clear and fair, balanced introduction. zalaraz's edits destroyed work agreed-upon by multiple editors, and it is vandalism. There’s a hidden message (in the criticism section) saying that these points were agreed-upon years and years ago and how they were to be presented, as well what would be talked about. (Please check the talk pages for additional information and history of this page.)

As was the introduction. It took a long time and a lot of back-and-forth to agree upon what was a proper format and structure, considering the controversy and heated opinions around Sai Baba. (AGAIN - see the talk pages)

Zalaraz is being asked to address each of these concerns, points, and questions in order to proceed in a cooperative manner in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

The article - previous to these edits - was well sourced/verified, well documented, well written and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. As of now due to these edits, it has lost its fluidity, grammatical correctiveness, proper Englishness as well as valuable information that was seen by many to be relevant to the biography of this figure. Ultimately one must ask themselves, do these new edits help the page? No, they do not. Bad English, useless deletion of well sourced and pertinent facts as well as the lies for deleting unneeded trivia do not help any page.

Wikipedia says itself "it is run by volunteers who are under no obligation to do your work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Yet here I am writing a long piece to ask zalaraz to explain why they made the edits they did so this can proceed amicably and improve the quality of the page/article.

All of these concerns must be addressed.

As zalaraz themself is saying the talk page consensus is necessary. Yet is this only for other editors and not their contributions? As zalaraz's phrase of "needing to achieve consensus in the talks" seems relevant, as should their "edits" now need to be validated by the talks as well as explained and expanded on due this vandalism.

As stated previously, the Sathya Sai Baba page took a lot of communication, concessions, and cooperation amongst many editors over a long period of time to come up with a balanced neutral and well sourced introduction. Any changes should involve researching the history of the article. As of now, any attempt by any other editor to change Zalaraz's edits is simply met with a reversion.

No discussion, no communication just a reversion. This is not Wikipedia policy.

This will ultimately lead to a edit war and this is why this post is being made.

• note.... In testament to the nature of zalaraz's edits, did zalaraz read the talk pages before their edits? did zalaraz reach consensus in their edits as they ask others to do? were the edits done with proper/understandable english and grammar? were the edits ultimately helping the page or hurting it? Did zalaraz read any of these source materials? Is it any other editors responsibility to read them for zalaraz? Absolutely not. As just stated, Wikipedia says it itself these “volunteers who are under no obligation to do your work“

Before anything can move forward, all of these concerns and questions must be addressed.

NB* the page was reverted to the March 24th version as to forgo having to re introduce/research ALL the lost sources/information and wordings due to zalaraz's "edits".

Any attempt to undo these edits will be seen as an edit war - as zalaraz has already simply undid edits by J929 and Anuradha Rao.

This shows zero good faith, discussion, research or effort put in to these "changes".

ALL of these points presented must be addressed, discussed and stream lined in order to move forward. J929 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You should stop assuming bad faith and making false accusations of vandalism, doing so is a personal attack. The contents of your edits are contentious, therefore onus for achieving the consensus for inclusion is on you. Just verification is not enough, WP:DUE is pertinent here, the lead is not a place to say what the person says about himself or what his followers say about widespread allegations against him. If you do not what WP:PROMOTION means on Wikipedia, then i have linked the relevant article for you. Listing his hospitals and other areas of social service certainly comes under promotion of his religious institution. Zalaraz (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

no concerns were addressed

providing links that you do not read is easy to do.

you didnt even find this talk box and had to message me to find it.

the initial edits stand.

if you want the changes, you will have to explain them and get consensus.

otherwise simply removing everyone else's edit is an edit war.

please address the concerns including the bad english and removing or verified sources. J929 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

undue weight?

giving undue weight to minority views. considering the size of the organization and the number of articles written both sides have a say in the criticism section. elaboration may be small or large but they are to be mentioned. and where did he go for religious cause? what does that mean? where are the sources for this statement?

bad english is terrible editing. J929 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

recent edits by digitalkushes should also be undone. the hidden message in the criticism section asks that this format be maintained in the future as this structure was agreed up on by MANY editors after alot of hours of co operation.

it does not add to the balance of the page. J929 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to its pre-Zalazar version. The editor appears not to be reviewing talk page discussions prior to making changes, resulting in disruptive and low-quality edits. Furthermore, when asked to justify these changes, no reasonable explanations have been provided. This is proving to be a waste of contributors’ time.

Considerable effort has clearly gone into both the article and the associated discussions—contributors like J929 have likely invested significant time in research and deliberation even to participate meaningfully in this dialogue. The page itself has been developed over several years through careful consensus-building among editors.

Given that the article is also susceptible to vandalism, it would be prudent to consider page protection to preserve its integrity. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the only one disagreeing with the changes made here, and there is no recent history of vandalism on this article. Your insinuations are making less sense by the minute. Reasonable explanations were provided, you have not read them, that is clear. I have yet to see any discussion on the contents of the lead, which is where my primary concerns are. Clearly, these changes were made ad hoc and are promotional and unencyclopedic in nature. Pinging @Sławomir Biały:. Zalaraz (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please scroll back and refer to the comments by Veg Historian on this very page, dated 11 Feb 2025. The accusation of murder is poorly sourced and is subject to WP UNDUE. Read that whole thread. Anuradha Rao (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

lets be honest, slawwomir is only here be his buddy Z as he affectionately calls him in his edits asked him for a second "opinion" and by opinion i mean " hey dud can you back me up on this?"

considering how little good faith each of these editors have given to the page and other editors, its a farce and shows the "boys club" of wiki editors.

example 1

slawmanir is a mathematician. correct? he removed an edit by j929 citing that the figure of 2500000 people at the 74 birth day celebrations were wrong.

fine.

in good faith i reviewed the material that was researched and saw i did in fact make a mistake. an honest one as indians use laks and crores, shifting the decimal place on larger numbers ie 2,500,00 which on first glance seems like 2,500,000 to most others. is this grounds for an honest mistake?

i would say yes. anyway, problem solved. edit redone with proper numbers.

BUT!! heres the thing, if slawmanir is a mathematician and loves numbers and ACTUALLY read the source material, WHY DID HE NOT SIMPLY CHANGE THE NUMBER HIMSELF???

seems like he would rather (easily) undo an edit (escalate) rather than correct an existing edit in good faith with the hopes to IMPROVE the article rather than display some form of "what"?

bad faith? impatience?

it would have taken 3 clicks to make a correction but they didnt.

again showing, zero good faith, zero desire to improve an article and that it seems simply he was asked by zalaraz to come and join his team.

"Agree with Z's revert here. The tone is frankly unencyclopedic in places, and not supported by the existing sources where content was added preceding an existing citation.Undid revision"

he even says he removed the edit because of an anomaly ... im guessing the missing zero.

fine.

that mistake is no basis for removing an entire section of the lead

while clearly showing support for Z's view point.

again it only shows the "club house" rules - not the good faith or rules wikipedia promotes.

and one small point i would like to add, ALL information in the lead is RELIABLY SOURCED - and agreed upon by MANY editors.

slawmanir said some good points were made in my previous/ initial post?

saying i agree with a few points but not elaboarting is a waste of time.

no specifics? yet easily saying you dont like the tone? reeeeeallly????

perhaps the poetry of tone and he make religious cause good went over your head.

the tone reflected the edits and attitude of zlaraz and his attempt to assert some form rulership/control/escalation that we all must prove our points to him first before editing.

where does it say anywhere that consensus is needed for any edit??

is he the lady of the lake?

Well, I didn't vote for you.

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing keyboards is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw an account at you!

where was i?

as stated before the LEAD and CRITICISMS section were argued out for months on this page and after ALOT of back and forth a format and structure was agreed upon. read the TALK PAGES -

theres even hidden messages asking NOT REMOVE CERTAIN SECTIONS!!!

yet zalaraz now asks we all ask him for permission??

this user has shown ZERO good faith or cooperation.

here is his first communication with me.

he couldnt find the talk page topic (???) - i thought you were fluent in wiki? and its policies? and its content...

so he posted this...

"Hello, I'm Zalaraz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zalaraz"

it "didnt seem very civil, so it may have been removed"??

REMEMBER this is before he read the talk page subject?

before?

so he couldnt find the topic, DID NOT READ IT YET ASSUMED i said something "offensive" or "civil" and immediately "called me up on it"?

how is this polite or respectful? good faith?

you claim to ask for this respect you give no one else.

next zalraz spams my talk page with two warnings.

ONE. says im starting an edit war - i distinctly said in the talk page that we have to iron this out before going forward and that continually removing and undoing will cause an edit war.

yet before even reading anything he accuses me of an edit war?

good faith? respect?

TWO - he spams my page again saying that

"Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing"

how or why does this page suddenly become a topic of contention because its based out of south asia??????

why are you suddenly a victim of uncivil behavior and disrespect - while pulling the "contentious" content card? lol

this seems like a form of subtle intimidation and threats. that seriously lacks substance.

there has been no good will, effort and insight by zalaraz.

EVERY link he sent me about promotional material i already sent him in the body of the talk page!!

yet , he sends it back and tells me to read it?? lol i quoted DIRECT parts of the page and got no response. meaning you put no effort into looking into what i said.

what EXACT parts are you referring to ? AND HOW DO THEY RELATE TO YOUR EDITS?

the worst part of this is the TERRIBLE ENGLISH OF "HE LEFT FOR RELIGIOUS CAUSE" what does that mean ? how is that proper English? where does it say this in ANY REFERENCE THAT HE USES????

no where in the times of india, deccan herald or other RELIABLE SOURCES does it say "religious cause"

it doesnt. its jibberish.

in his other edits he uses "religious" as well as . im guessing it seems to be like a solid blanket statement that covers any specifics.

in honesty, it sounds "dumb". bad english. band grammar and completely out of place.

and it uses misplaced source/references.

and this is in the lead?????????

any attempt to correct it is taken as an edit war?

any good edits would be welcomed! i already said try to stream line points or join facts that create a harmonious tone. yet we arguing over "he left for reilgious cause????

what does slawomir have to say about that wording? does it sound like good english? or is like saying

or how about the FACT a university paper discussing the macro effect of the maha guru phenomenon has on the over all scope of the movement as well as the personality behind it?

how is stating the large scope that Sai Baba and now his organization holds world wide a "protoional" piece of content?

if one says Nike's sales are in the top three of the world for shoes (THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL!!!!!!) AND THEY ARE!!! is that promotional or fact. now add how that manufacturing and sales and company expenses help multiple countries/economies flourish or even destroy ecosystems due to creating material ie dying fabric/child labour etc. is this is still oriented. or is it promotional?

OR does it show a larger scope of the influence of these companies - in social, financial, eco, labour systems??

if zalaraz wanted to help the article he would have move the WELL REFERENCED - with credible and RELIABLY source material to another part of the page.

if it was too promotional for the lead, but he didnt.

again

zero effort.

total control

report to me and make a consensus before i allow it.

you mentioned my tone.

THIS tone is the real problem.

lets be clear.

-zalaraz lied in his edits, saying he removed "unneeded trivia" when he was really removed disconnect source material and references to cover his tracks for his previous edits. can you say slash and burn?

-he couldnt find the talk page and assumed it was removed because (again)

-he assumed i was being uncivil and disrespectful

- spammed my talk page with threats about edit wars and uncontentious material for south east asia? LOL

- didnt read or respond to ONE of my 4 direct concerns with the edits he made

- calls another editor to side with him - and who by the way its sounds doesnt really side with him - just doesnt have the time to get into the fine details of this

AAAAAAND we have to get an ok with zalaraz to make any edits??

this sounds more the "religious cause" train of thought that doesnt belong here.

here are the main points again, if your attention span is that low

1. he left for religious cause MAKES NO SENSE. it is bad englsih, jibberish and has no back up sources . his mission statement of leaving to do his work is very important to change noted from a young sathyanaranya to sai baba. it is documented and reliably sourced. therefor should not be changed

2. anthropological macro effects of this maha guru phenomenon is relevant and ACCURATE to the topic of sai baba. unlike smaller lesser known spiritual figures, the article states and shows (RELIABLE SOURCE) that sai baba's instituion in particular extended

beyond know or familiar ways. it like an earth quake, 3.2 isnt to bad. 5.8... ok.... OOOOOR!!!! 1960 Great Chilean earthquake (Valdivia earthquake), which occurred on May 22, 1960, with a magnitude of 9.5 !!!!!!

when discussing earth quakes, if you said this chilean earthquake was BIG? are your promoting it? pleading a cause? making a manifest? NO! it is being addressed with in its context and how after a certain point, different phenomenon occur. i run down the street 8 mphs. i go in a plane at 600 mphs. coooool! but in a rocket at 12,00,000 mphs and i break through the sound barrier. shatter windows, rupture eardrums, but i dont get that while running down the street. there are levels of experiences and the effects change according to that. as does the larger maha gurus. and this reliable article discusses it. so it important to the lead.

3. i can not stress this enough - READ the talks, and see how much arguing went on for the CRITICISM SECTION and LEAD!!! it was agreed upon once the final structure was formulated that it would stay as it is. and it has , until now. there are hidden messages saying not to change it!

yet now we have to ask for permission to keep the same neutrality many editors agreed upon?

this has been spoonfed to you all again.

in good faith to spend the time writing this.

if youre going to reply with "see promotional works in wikipedia" or " we agree that" and create the boys club attitude then my previous points of subtle threats, escalation, bad understanding and englsih, and zero good faith stand firm.

in which i re assert, this was simply bullied vandalism.

alot of this has been discussed before, re read the talks as anurdaha even said.

to dismiss it simply disrespects the page and other editors.

it goes against wikipedia policy. J929 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. The removed content had serious tone issues. More neutral rewrites can be proposed and discussed here. I don't really intend to participate in a spate of finger-pointing and drama. J929 does raise some good points, but they are buried in a lengthy diatribe. It might be more productive if they suggested specific edits, rephrased in a neutral way, and which sources support making those changes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  my apologies, the page froze and some of the ideas werent finished, but i think the point got across.

  if youve read what ive wrote , then provide feedback.

  i started the page out of good will and have felt none returned.

  zalaraz has not expanded on WHY they feel the edits are promotional, GIVE EXACT EXCERPTS from wikipedia policy.

  half of your messages are how offended you feel and then you repeat that its against policy, EXPAND as to WHY!

  I'm not the only one disagreeing with the changes made here, and there is no recent history of vandalism on this article.

  OK WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TODO WITH ANYTHING?

  Your insinuations are making less sense by the minute.

  NO NEED TO GET DEFENSIVE

  Reasonable explanations were provided,

  WHERE???

  adding a reference page isnt an explanation

  you have not read them, that is clear.

  i provided at least 5 different views of "promotional" and you describe none nor gave feedback.

  I have yet to see any discussion on the contents of the lead, which is where my primary concerns are.

  LITERALLY PARAGRAPHS OF POINTS AND DIRECTIONS> DID YOU READ IT?

  Clearly, these changes were made ad hoc and are promotional and unencyclopedic in nature. Pinging Slaowmain

  ELABORATE??? SPECIFICS... calling your friend to back you up. but neither of seem to be putting in any time..

  just read what link i sent, i sent you the same link 2 hours previous.

  • from previous sections

  "According to wikipedia.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

  What part of the introduction is promotional, propaganda? Advertising, showcasing? Advocacy, recruitment?

  Is it self promotion? Did Sai baba edit this himself - considering he’s been dead for years now? Did someone put a laptop beside his grave and he made the edits himself? What company is being promoted? Publicity? For what? is this PR?

  Initially the section started/read as "By virtue of his sizeable influence, many feel Sai Baba provides an example of "the phenomenon referred to as mahagurus; that is, gurus with a global reach."[27]

  Why was this removed? Where was the "promotional material" in this statement? Did Zalaraz read the university paper/book that they so readily deleted? I’m guessing no.".

  if youve read what ive wrote and arent happy with the "tone", then simply say , the tone is off BUT heres the points i gathered, i think this,,, and how to improve that,,, and present them. it seems no effort to elaborate is consistant with both you.

  Z obviously called you for back up.

  and your both playing the game everyone else needs to get permission from you to move forward.

  if thats not the case, contribute.

  i made a summary at the last post/thread. 3 main points for edits and sections.

  if you both cant elaborate or discuss them with you accusing everyone, then this is at a stand still, and i cant say i didnt try...

  other wise i think a revert to previous full version is in order. then re add digital kushes contributions, and we can take statement/sentence by sentence from there. otherwise considering the agreed upon structure of the lead and criticism sections, and the history/messages in the page, this should be seen as vandalism. J929 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  and demanding consensus to undo zalaraz's edits doesnt make it not vandalism.

  "religious cause" was never explained? what sources say that? sai Baba NEVER founded a religion or had religious CAUSE.

  why did the edit "removed unneeded trivia" in fact only remove reliable sources?

  why spam my talk page with contentious south asian pages? and edit war warnings?

  explanations J929 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  This does not seem to be constructive. If you want someone to engage with you constructively, please separate the personal stuff from the stuff that is actually about the article. One template that might be useful is an A/B version: (A) what the article currently says, (B) what it should say. You can also give a direct quote from the source if it supports revision (B). Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hello, and thank you for the suggestion. However it would involve a significant amount of duplicated effort - repeating edits, discussions, and consensus-building that multiple editors have already worked through over the past few years. It would also be quite cumbersome to recover all the citations that were lost in the recent edits.

  Perhaps we could instead restore the version prior to Zalazar’s edits and proceed from there. You can then share your specific concerns or objections, and we can continue the discussion.

  Think of it this way, even if we reach a consensus now, what if a future editor unaware of these discussions, introduces new changes, bringing us back to square one. That would mean repeating the same conversations and rebuilding consensus all over again, just as we doing now. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:ONUS works. There is no evidence that all of the content in the lead has been discussed and has consensus for inclusion for. Zalaraz (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Read the talks, all the discussions are there. as well go into the history of the page and see the edit wars.

  wikipedia says it themselves, no one is here to do your work.

  best idea. revert to previous version and take each edit as one specific edit/point.

  otherwise, as i stated before this vandalism with somehow putting the onus on everyone else, rather than doing any work yourself.

  imo. 3 points of contention.

  1. religious cause edit

  2. rebuttal of devotees to allegations - seen as a reason for their disagreement

  3. macro influence of the movement, ie mahaguru reference

  revert and discuss each point.

  zlaaraz has still not provided the SPECIFIC promotional material context for his assertation. as well his notes of needed consensus to undo anything he deems as a good edits is ridiculous. J929 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  You must link these discussions, after all it is you who is asserting that there is a consensus for them. Zalaraz (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  The page has existed for years now, and given the controversial nature of the subject, there would have been consensus on the lead? A new participant making unilateral changes and putting the onus on those who have already done all the hard work is not fair? I have already provided the link for the second point (2. rebuttal of devotees to allegations - seen as a reason for their disagreement) - there was disagreement on including the allegations in the lead as it is already detailed in the criticism section - finally the consensus was if allegations are summarized in the lead then the disclaimer to those allegations should also be included. You can't have it just one way and claim neutrality. The allegations existed only in media (which could well be paid propaganda ads CIA had also mentioned in their report that you can break his following by demonstrating him as a fraud). None of the people alleging againt him pursued any allegations legally. Based on merely media reports you can't present them as absolute truth in the lead, it's totally unencyclopaedic. You have to mention the other party's version too. Anuradha Rao (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The arguments for the first and third points have also been elaborated by J929 in their contributions to this thread in the last couple days. We have freshly reiterated the reasoning (citations for which were included in the pre-Zalaraz version) all over again for all the three points apart from the consensus built over the years in the talk pages. Anuradha Rao (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Again, making unsubstantiated assertions of consensus is not going to help your case, if you assert that there is a consensus for the material in lead, then you must demonstrate that there is one. Zalaraz (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  no one is here to validate your edits. the sources are reliable.

  youre the only one asking for consensus in edits.

  your not a gate that other editors must go through J929 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  READ the articles listed in the original edits/version!

  Then correlate of the information on wikipedia to the reliable source material.

  it is obvious neither of you have read any thing - source material OR TALKS.

  as wikipedia says, other editors are not here to do your work.

  if we proceed with A/B correlation then the page MUST be reverted.

  as well im not going to provide all the information so you can arm chair look upon it all and see what you agree with. if you wont do the work, dont participate.

  if you havent read the articles, there is zero onus on anyone else to provide you with anything. its ALL there. read it. J929 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  WAYYYY too long, did not and will not read, especially with the personal attacks/rants in place. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Commment. I'm not really convinced of the existence of some kind of broad community consensus for the article's present state. Several parts still fall well short of Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing standards. For example, the second paragraph of the lede is a laundry list of supposed miracles and miraculous abilities, exceptional claims that require exceptional sources. Insofar as some of them are attributed, they are undue weight and lack counterbalance. The biography section largely acknowledges that it is based on hagiography, which to my mind raises real questions as to whether it is even possible to cover this content neutrally. Assuming it can be rewritten, it is littered with extraordinary claims, such as "He won fame for his reputed mystical powers and ability to heal." "These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery." The section on Beliefs and practices is written from a completely devotional perspective, not neutral prose. In the "Ashrams and mandirs" section, even paragraphs that could be rewritten neutrally are littered with gratuitous devotional content. A sample: 'Prasanthi Nilayam is painted blue, yellow, and pink "communicating the message of the harmony of spirit, intellect, and heart respectively; for blue stands for spirit, yellow for intellect, and pink for heart (love). The rich harmony of the three does result in Santi (peace) and Prasanti (supreme peace); and that really is the message of the Prasanthi Mandir."[99]' Finally, accounts of skeptics and critics are quarantined to a "Criticisms" section rather than worked in to the main text. The pervasive devotional accounts and flowery prose are given undue weight throughout the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  ooops the goal post has shifted! Anyway, acknowledging the section is based on hagiography (which is the case for all religious leaders and gurus of the past including Jesus) is a disclaimer in itself cautioning the reader, lending it neutrality and and leaving it to reader's judgement. From grammar, structure and flow perspective definitely it is not the best written article, but we can't endlessly keep disputing on contents. In spite of all the discussions over the years, the article already continues to be skewed in favor of the subject's detractors, a lot of content favorable to the subject is not allowed on the page even when richly supported with good citations. Anuradha Rao (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whose "goalposts" have "shifted"? I explained that I agreed with the removal of the content because of the tone, and it was not supported by the cited sources. That does not exclude the fact that there is a lot of other content inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, which you loudly declaim has some mystical "consensus". (And, fwiw, I do not find this revert particularly indicative that there is much consensus, outside of your own efforts to police the content of the article.) The article is not "skewed in favor of the subject's detractors". Entire sections are written from the point of view of religious fanatics! Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  We were talking about the lead, and then you mentioned the rest of the article - that was the shift I was referring to. What exactly do you mean by consensus, pray tell me. An explicit written statement for each line? The point was disputed and then both parties arrived at a middle after which there was no further comments from either side. The edit in question (the second point which I'm disputing the removal of) was not even made by me but by Veg Historian. An pray what else are you doing now than police the contents. So let's not go into that kind of exchange. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not clear what we were talking about. You were talking about "consensus" (despite being an account with no edits outside this topic, who has reverted other editors in the past and now claim that your version has "implicit consensus".) And I did say that the second paragraph of the lede is undue weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well I did revert edits, that's what all do, but I left it at that after my edits were reverted and did not get into an edit war. Just as in this example I did not start an edit was when Zalaraz reverted my edits. IS there a rule that I should have edits outside of this topic in order to participate on this one. I repeat the edit that I am talking about here was not mine but of Veg Historian - in Feb 2026. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Which was reverted, right? Hence: no consensus for it! Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  It wasn't reverted then by the disputing party at that point (a year back when the topic was disputed). Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  It was neither reverted nor further objected to by the disputing editor on the talk thread. Anuradha Rao (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Read WP:SILENCE Zalaraz (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  post your point not a page,

  you have NOT pointed to one specific aspect of promotional that you find in the page, yet you only ask people to read a page.

  by your logic of silence, "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident", there can not be a consensus on this page and therefor your edits will be there for ever based on your "Achieve consensus" demand.

  it is not possible or even cooperative in nature as is your notion any other editor must have your approval.

  pick a lane J929 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  zalaraz 's edits have zero consensus J929 (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  FEb 2025 (not 2026) Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is a tacit consesus after every discussion. If we are to arrive at a consensus after the current one too, it would be tacit, or pray tell us if there is a formal way to lock consensus for every bit. Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  A formal consensus can be formed by a WP:RfC. You just WP:OWNing and forming a consensus with yourself isn't "tacit consensus". The fact of this discussion undercuts any claim of consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Having dedicated section headers and a separate section for criticism and response is the format followed for most articles. Anuradha Rao (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wrong (Wikipedia:Criticism, WP:EVALFRINGE). Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is what is said in Wikipedia: "Criticism - Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply, best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Anuradha Rao (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  aaaand there is it. zero response to wikipedia policy.

  much like zalaraz's claim that the article is promotional but can not elaborate on that with specifics ...

  is it a pamphlet? agenda based? propaganda? advertising?

  you have made claims but have not been specific - J929 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  aaaand there is it. zero response to wikipedia policy.

  much like zalaraz's claim that the article is promotional but can not elaborate on that with specifics ...

  is it a pamphlet? agenda based? propaganda? advertising?

  you have made claims but have not been specific - J929 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  request for comment started this thread. what does that have to with that rao said?

  youre the same as zalaraz , you point to a page with wikipedia policy as some sort of commandment. with out a specific point.

  i read the page, now what?

  it doesnt say anything in reference to your "wrong" assertion.

  at least rao pointed/quoted SPECIFIC WIKIPEDIA POLICY

  a quick question, how do you and Z know each other? i doubt you floated here on a whim so conveniently after this discussion was started.

  quote a wikipedia policy directly - dont assert and ask everyone to read a page or link you post.

  you and Z have not read one source provided for the page. so dont ask others to read a page so to see WHY you THINK Its "WRONG" J929 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  fringe? lol

  fringe theories are like sungazing, homeopathy or tired light hypothesis.

  these are documented and agreed upon experiences around this figure so they are discussed!!!

  THEY ARE NOT BEING ARGUED FOR THEIR INTRINSIC VALIDITY!

  ie. PERSON A (famous figure) says he studies homeopathy and has clients/patience and says he's made 1$ billion from this endevour.

  so you should not write about this aspect of PERSON A's life because homeopathy is "Fringe".

  PERSON A is the topic, not the homeopathy.

  a far reaching and irrelevant wikipedia policy at best J929 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  if youre in acadamia as you say you are, you would know wikipedia can not be used as a source for academic work. why not read the source material, rather than other sections of the page to see if the original sources pair up with the information provided? J929 (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• J929 and Anuradha Rao, your very high dedication towards the subject and lack of adherence to Wiki policies is only making me think that you are close to getting topic banned. I would recommend both of you to drop it now. ~2026-23353-49 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-23353-49 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This style of WP:BLUDGEON response makes it very difficult to respond to comments (or even find comments). Needless to say, this article is not about a "worldview" or "religion". It is about a person. Critisism of that person should be merged into the main text. That is particularly the case here, where most of the article is writen from an entirely unencyclopedic devlotional view. The entire article needs to be rewritten to eliminate exceptional claims not backed by reliable biographical sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC) To keep things focused, I made a list of issues that I could find, and formatted them into a table. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Section	Quotation / Description	Issue Type	Problem	Suggested Fix
Lead (2nd paragraph)	List of miracles and abilities presented in sequence	Exceptional claims / UNDUE	Reads as factual enumeration; lacks attribution and balance	Collapse into a single attributed sentence summarizing follower beliefs; add critical context or remove from lead
Biography	"He won fame for his reputed mystical powers and ability to heal."	Non-neutral / vague attribution	"Won fame" implies endorsement; "reputed" insufficiently attributed	Replace with: "He became known among followers for claims of..."
Biography	"These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself..."	Exceptional claim	Extraordinary claim presented narratively; weak attribution	Attribute explicitly to source and contextualize (e.g., reports by devotees)
Early life / youth	Descriptions of childhood miracles	Exceptional claims	Often based on hagiographic sources; presented sequentially	Condense and attribute as later biographical tradition
Biography (general)	Narrative built largely from hagiographic sources	Structural neutrality issue	Article acknowledges reliance but still reproduces claims	Reframe as "accounts describe…" and foreground source type
Beliefs and practices	Section written in descriptive, affirmative tone of teachings	Hagiography / tone	Reads as internal exposition rather than external summary	Rewrite using secondary sources: "His teachings emphasize... according to..."
Beliefs and practices	Use of insider terminology without context	Unencyclopedic	Assumes belief framework as given	Add attribution and explanatory framing
Ashrams and mandirs	Symbolic interpretation of colors ("blue stands for spirit")	Hagiography / promotional	Devotional interpretation presented as fact	Attribute explicitly or remove; summarize briefly if notable
Ashrams and mandirs	Extended descriptive passages of facilities	Promotional tone	Reads like institutional brochure	Reduce to verifiable facts (dates, scale, sources)
Miracles (if separate section)	Detailed descriptions of materializations, healings, etc.	Exceptional claims	Excessive detail; repetition; reliance on primary/devotee sources	Condense to summary with attribution + critical responses
Devotee perspectives	Long quotations from followers	UNDUE weight	Overrepresents one perspective	Trim to brief, sourced summary
Lead / general	Terms like "divine", "holy", "miraculous" (unattributed)	Non-neutral language	Violates WP:NPOV if not attributed	Attribute or remove
Throughout	Repetition of miracle claims across sections	Redundancy / UNDUE	Inflates importance of claims	Consolidate into one section
References	Devotional or self-published sources	WP:RS issue	Not reliable for factual claims	Replace with independent secondary sources
Overall tone	Flowery or interpretive language throughout	Unencyclopedic	Signals endorsement rather than description	Rewrite in neutral, descriptive prose