Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no question that in terms of the amount of information and number of references that this article is at the very least a B-class article. The unfortunate downside is that, given the regular revisions to the article which seem to be taking place, that it might encounter difficulties on that basis. Personally, if and when the edit wars ever end, I will be more than happy to review it and very likely propose it for good-article status. Until the edit wars cease, though, I regret to say that there probably isn't much that can be done to promote it, as the content might change substantially between the time the article is nominated and the time it is reviewed. Badbilltucker 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reservations about this being a B-class article. It has a lot of detail but also a lot of POV-pushing and it paints a picture that seems to me to be just plain inaccurate in the real world. And while there are many references they're almost entirely of works admiring SSB, mentioning little or none of the large amount of critical material available. The following seems like a very good bibliography of SSB-related material: bdsteel.tripod.com/More/sbresearchbib1.htm
Maybe some of the works mentioned in it can be used to improve the article.

67.117.130.181 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, now 67.117.130.181 is arguing for the inclusion of original research by Steel, a source that deemed to be non-reputable in mediation with BostonMA. 67.117.130.181, SSB is a very popular personality. The controversial material about him is many years old and there simply isn't any new controversial material to update the article with. Also, please refrain from posting these critical links on pages associated with Sathya Sai Baba. There is an ArbCom ruling that has prohibited this. Please read it for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba SSS108 ^talk-email 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to incorporate the bibliography into the article. I'm saying it has citations for various other publications that look like they should be usable in the article and are likely to be worth tracking down. I don't see it as a critical link. It is a bibliography and has citations to all kinds of material both pro and anti. Also, it is well sourced: every entry in it has a citation, which is the point of a bibliography. I will ask Thatcher131 for clarification about the arb ruling since I think you may have both misinterpreted it (at least I hope you have). 67.117.130.181 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• requested here. 67.117.130.181 06:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)