Talk:Narayana Kasturi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Notability?

I noticed this page actively linked to Sathya Sai Baba. How is this guy notable? Ekantik 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, How is the link to the Mick Brown's article "Divine Downfail" article labelling Kasturi's writings as a hagiography irrelevant? Andries 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Babb, Brown's article is not a scholarly source. Babb's reference to Kasturi's material as "hagiographic" is more relevant and better sourced than the Brown reference. The question is: Why are you insisting on including a link that happens to pertain to the Sai Controversy to source a comment that has already been sourced to Babb's scholarly work. As a matter of fact, you enquired of TalkAbout about Babb [1] and he responded [2]. All the relevant particulars to the Babb reference have been provided and yet you demand more. Why? SSS108 ^talk-email 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I have not fully read Babb and I do doubt whether it is true. I think it is relevant that a journalist independently confirmed Babb's assertion. Taking into account that there are only few reputable third-party sources for this article, I think that we should use these sources to the maximum. Andries 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing your Anti-Sai agenda. Nobody doubts that Kasturi's series about SSB were hagiographies. It is a trivial point. You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. What are you going to do? File another complaint? SSS108 ^talk-email 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

May be the reader has doubts. This is the first time that I see you admitting that Kasturi's writings are hagiographic. Please explain to me why you consider Kasturi's hagiography a good source for a biography which you have been saying many time at talk:Sathya Sai Baba. Or do you retract that? I do not what to do apart from dispute resolution when you repeatedly revert my edits, so yes, I will probably file a request for comments. Andries 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Kasturi's hagiography (a term I have used many times before: a couple examples: [3][4]) should be used as a reference because his books are the primary ones used to discuss SSB's early life and are mentioned by scholars and even religious encyclopedias. The "hagiographic" term has been referenced to a scholarly source and I view your inclusion of Brown's article as Anti-Sai POV-pushing and will remove it for that reason. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I have been saying at least ten times, I cannot understand how a hagiography or material based on a hagiography can be used for a serious biography. Again, as I have been saying many times, I admit that Kasturi's hagiography is important to describe beliefs of the SSB movement, because stories about his youth and his miracles are an important element of the beliefs Sathya Sai Baba movement. So I think that Kasturi's poorly researched uncorroborated statements should be used for the article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Of course, it is a different matter when statements from Kasturi's hagiography are corroborated or contradicted. Andries 17:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had this discussion with you umpteen times. Kasturi's books are not about beliefs and practices in the SSB movement and he is often sourced by scholars and religious encyclopedia's. It doesn't matter what you think about Kasturi. It doesn't matter what you think about his books. Kasturi is often sourced by reliable references. If religious encyclopedia's can cite Kasturi's works in relation to SSB life, so can Wikipedia. You are uncooperative and nothing has changed.

And I will be adding material from Kasturi's auto-biography "Loving God" to this article soon. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Authobiographies should be used with great care in articles. It is much better to use third-party sources, though I admit that only few are there. Andries 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Not to mention the fact that this particular autobiography contains far too much "waffling" (to put it politely) for it to make any sense out of it at all. For example, trying to find a proper chronology of Kasturi's life (or even his experiences with SSB) is near impossible. Ekantik ^talk 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess those encyclopedias had only one article where they could put the information in. Here we have two. Andries 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion about the Brown/Telegraph is ridiculous. Ekantik ^talk 14:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)