Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSai Baba of Shirdi was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 28, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
October 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 12, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021[edit]

Can you please change the vocabulary from died to "Attained Samadhi" under his display picture. Because its not appropriate to say died for saints. Shravs45 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. That means we abstain from religious honorifics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presenting fiction as facts?[edit]

The text under the section titled 'Transfer of spiritual power'. The claims / events mentioned underneath appear to be based on hearsay and can not be classified as historical truth. There are other sections like this which frankly have assertions which are probably valid only for the devotees of Sai Baba, suggest renaming such sections to something like - "Transfer of spiritual power according to believers" The kind of assertions made in such sections are presented as events which actually happened but are extraordinary claims needing rigorous proof , which of course we do not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.88.234 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors, any updates? Sample these sentences in the section 'Transfer of spiritual power'
During Chaturmasya, when Gopal Deshmukh was in the gardens, a group of men jealous of his growing closeness to Sai Baba, hurled a brick at him. Gopal Deshmukh with his powers, kept the brick suspended in mid air. Yet another hooligan hurled another brick which hit Gopal Deshmukh. Young Baba pleaded with him to let him go away, as it was his own presence that was the cause of this trauma. Yet Gopal Deshmukh refused, medicated his injury with a shred of his own cloth and announced to Baba that it was time for his spiritual power to be transferred to Young Baba.
If this is not preposterous, then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksane (talkcontribs) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misinformation[edit]

"He is thought by devotees to be an avatar of the Hindu god Dattatreya". This claim is baseless. None of the Hindu scriptures indicate that he is an avatar of the Hindu god Dattatreya. If any of his followers thinks that he is an avatar, then that is his/her personal opinion. There is no need to refer to this statement here. Kindly remove this statement. I know that someone created a citation for this but it is still baseless. Requesting admin to check it. Mr.sandippaul (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is he thought by his devotees or isn't he? — kashmīrī TALK 21:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Avatar in Hinduism is not like this. If he wants to declare himself as an avatar of a deity, he has to prove it by his actions. And the scriptures must describe that person in detail along with recognition by all the acharyas. Only then will he be recognized as an avatar. There is no guna present in Sai Baba's case. Some devotees say Sai Ram Sai Sham, which means he is Lord Ram and he is Lord Krishna, and some say he is an avatar of Lord Shiva. These can be nothing but fanciful rumors. And no scriptures acknowledge him. That's why I requested the admin to delete it. One should not make such a big statement without proof. And if a person is a disciple of a guru, respect him greatly. That does not mean that guru is an incarnation of god. And if that disciple even thinks that he is an incarnation of God, that is his personal opinion. Let me give an example. Suppose I am a disciple of Sadhguru. I respect Sadhguru a lot. That doesn't make Sadhguru an incarnation of Lord Shiva. He is a guru, he should be given the place of guru. There should not be confusion between God and the Guru. Mr.sandippaul (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying "it's just the opinion of followers" isn't saying anything different to what the statement is saying. It doesn't refer to what the Hindu scriptures say, it refers to what devotees think, based on the Rigopoulos source and the hagiography. It doesn't say they are right, it just says what they think. However, it's unlikely that all devotees think of him in this way. He has had many followers from other traditions, especially Islam. It might be an idea to move the statement out of the lead and into the Worship and devotees section. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is the word "Avatar". It is a sensitive word. Followers of Hinduism do not call any person an Avatar about whom there is no mention in the scriptures. Only those who have never read the scriptures or have no knowledge of Hindu scriptures will spread these fanciful rumors. So those imaginary rumors should not be given credence and should not be propagated unnecessarily. And if we talk about Islam, then the thing becomes more clear. According to Islam, God does not incarnate on earth. So talking about Islam was not necessary here. Those Islamic people who believe in Sai Baba, believe him only as a "Fakir" and never as an incarnation of God. So the word "Avatar" should not be used here. Mr.sandippaul (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the statement said "Sai Baba of Shirdi is an Avatar of Dattatreya" in wikipedia's voice that would be wrong and perhaps spreading "fanciful rumors", but that's not what the statement says. It reports something believed by devotees, according to the best known contemporary biography and an academic book on Dattatreya. However, I agree that the statement is undue in the lead section of the article. The basis for it is not discussed elsewhere, and it obviously doesn't apply to Muslim followers and possibly also many Hindu followers. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lie never becomes true, even if it is transferred from the lead section to another place. However, this subject is very controversial. As many good things are associated with Sai Baba's name, so many controversies are also associated with him. None of them are mentioned here. For example, his birth name is "Chand Mia". I would also like to mention that this name is controversial. Also, there are many controversial topics related to him. If I mention all of them, maybe my statement will stand under hate speech. At the end, I will say that the controversies should be clearly mentioned. Because, while the two-day ChatGPT clearly mentions everything, on the other hand, Wikipedia continues to praise him. Mr.sandippaul (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome to add any information that is due and backed by reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. — kashmīrī TALK 08:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting line of the Sai Baba of Shirdi[edit]

I never have heard that Saibaba name was Chand miya. I have red so many articles and one of which is Sai Satcharitra. Sai satcharitra is one of the popular work which was accomplished by Mr Annasaheb Dabolkar in which Saibaba's daily routine, his actions, his behaviour and indeed the supernatural activities that he performed while living in Shirdi are presented in details. Mr Annasaheb Dabokar started this work from 1910. In the whole Sai Satcharitra the name Chand miya is no where referred. At the age of 20, when he permanently took residence at Shirdi village, Mahalsapati welcomed him by the words "AAO SAI". After this welcome, the fakir got the name SAI. He then never left Shirdi till his mahasamadhi (1918) and was always recognized by the name SAI during the 60 year tenure. So claiming the name as Chand miya is totally baseless. As referred by Sai satcharitra, Saibaba made an assurance that if one chants Sai Sai, he will save such man even from the jaw of death. This he did for the inception of faith in his devotees hearts. Mishra235 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone added the name a few days ago for no apparent reason. It has been changed back to "also known as Shirdi Sai Baba". Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

early years, 2nd para[edit]

Baba was notorious for giving vague, misleading and contradictory replies to questions concerning his parentage and origins, brusquely stating the information was unimportant.

This sentence seems too negative, almost pugilist in its approach, while at the same time not being of any significant importance to the overall article. Suggest removing this or adding something more neutral like - Sai Baba was uninterested in talking about his his parentage and origins,often brusquely stating that the information was unimportant

~~Sukisen Sukisen (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's also unsourced; I've replaced it with something more neutral in tone. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~ thanks @Harold the Sheep Sukisen (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Sai Baba of Shirdi[edit]

The following discussion 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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of uncited prose, including almost the entire "Worship and devotees" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.