Talk:Baba Farid

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sikhism

This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism articles

It is requested that an image or photograph of Baba Farid be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Pakistan may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Errors in dates and wrong chronology

According to your article Baba Farid seems to have settled in Punjab with his family in the aftermath of Mongolian invasion of Kabul. The article states their date of settlement around 1125. Now, this is a well-known historical fact that Mongol invaded Kabul around 1222 on their way to destroy the Khawarzami Sultanate. Genghis Khan (real name Temujin) was born on 1162 then how he manages to invade Kabul in 1125.

On the chronology front, in one place the article mentions Shaik Shoaib to be Baba Farid’s grandfather who escapes Kabul to settle in Punjab, and a few lines later the same Shaik Shoaib is stated to be Baba Farid’s father.

Again in relation to Shaik Shoaib’s ancestral history, the article mentions him as the nephew of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi. This is another serious mistake because Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi lived in the 10th Century and Shaik Shoaib lived in the 12th century.

Correct Title

In line with Wikipedia convention of naming articles (no honorifics), I think the correct title should be "Fariduddin Masood". Redirects can be created from Ganjshakar, Shakarganj, Baba Farid, Baba Fareed, etc etc Hassanfarooqi 14:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this, but renaming to "fariduddin masood" would make it unrecognizable. No one knows him as "masood", but if you say ganjshakar/shakargunj, then one know exactly who is being referred to. In that sense, Ganjshakar is not an honorific as much as it is an identifier. Precedents for this on wikipedia are for example Alexander the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent or Alfred the Great. In each of these cases, the honorific is an identifier to let us know exactly who is being discussed. So I suggest just keeping the title as is. --Barastert 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I guess we should keep it this way. However I suggest there should be a redirects Hassanfarooqi 15:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fariduddin Ganjshakar

Baba Farid was a Muslim saint (1173–1266) while Sikhism was founded by Nanak (1469–1538), Baba Farid was dead for 400 years before Sikhism was even founded. How can he be a Sikh ? The Sikh gurus took his selective works added into Granth Sahib and revered him. The fact remain he was Muslim saint. There is a section in Fariduddin Ganjshakar page about his reverence in Sikhism. Paknur (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paknur. I was fine with most of your edits. This man has great importance in Sikhism as he was chosen to be one of the 15 Sikh Bhagats by the founder of Sikhism. For this reason, there is no reason for you to remove the Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi Punjabi scripts from or the lead or the Sikh Bhagats template from the article. In addition, in the lead, you also delinked Punjab from Punjab region to Punjab (Pakistan) when the division did not exist during that time period. Today, the saint is also revered in Indian Punjab making the former terminology more correct. In fact, there is an Indian university named after him. In addition, I never stated that Baba Farid was a Sikh; in fact I removed the Indian Sikhs category from the article as I found it to be erroneous. I also formated a reference which you undid. For these reasons, I am reverting your edits. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked other Sikh Bhagats in Category:Sikh Bhagats they do not have their name in Gurmukhi script. Fariduddin Ganjshakar page has his name in Gurmukhi script in the Sikhism and Baba Farid section with the links. Paknur (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gradndson of Ibn Adham

/* Life */ Removed the line that says he was the grandson of Ibn Adham. How can that be?They lived 8 centuries apart. Did you mean Descendent ? Needs substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuadaj (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fariduddin Ganjshakar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705163718/http://www.babafariduniv.com/Introduction/Introduction.asp to http://www.babafariduniv.com/Introduction/Introduction.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering "Baba Farid" as the title

Per WP:COMMONNAME, simply "Baba Farid" is easily the most recognisable name for this person. The older discussion above references a policy against honorifics in titles, but I think exceptions can be made in cases where recognition is impeded. We have article titles like Alexander the Great for example. عُثمان (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@عُثمان You raise a valid point. According to Google Books, "Baba Farid" is far, far more common than "Fariduddin Ganjshakar". Please see here. I will support a request to re-name the article as a result in-accordance to WP:COMMONNAME. I believe honorifical terms such as "Baba" are permitted to be part of an article if they are part of a common name. ThethPunjabi (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fariduddin Ganjshakar → Baba Farid – According to Google Books, "Baba Farid" is far more common than "Fariduddin Ganjshakar". Please see here. Requesting the article title to be moved to "Baba Farid" as per WP:COMMONNAME. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Baba" comes under WP:HONORIFICS and thus, it should not be used in the article titles. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HONORIFICS actually seems to support the title being changed to Baba Farid.

"Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa."

He's definitely more popularly known as Baba Farid than Fariduddin Ganjshakar in both sources and in the Punjab region in general. Baba isn't simply an honorific in this case, it's an integral part of who he's known as. EstablishmentOfKnowledge (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --BeLucky (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is a clear case.

عُثمان (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.