Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disputed Material

Sharada Devi, a devotee of the guru Sathya Sai Baba, claims that before Sai Baba of Shirdi's death he secretly told her that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya ("truth").

The ref is not WP:RS.--Redtigerxyz 06:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO it is reliable because it only says that SHarada Devi says therfore it is OK. Kkrystian 08:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The website can not be regarded as WP:RS. "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."--Redtigerxyz 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am following the 'to do list' policy: "Please remove any reference to other Sai Baba altogether it is a controversial statement rebirth as another sai baba."

The statement in question also gives WP:UNDUE to the Sathya Sai Baba claim. I have not totally removed the mention of Sathya Sai Baba from the article. --Redtigerxyz 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that references must be impecable. My problem is that the article that is given as a source [1] does not say what is said in the article. It is embellished. This intellectual dishonesty is somewhat alarming, and in itself sends up red flags. Because it is disingenuous (embellished from the source) and because it is found on a Sathya Sai Baba website that might be viewed as lacking NPOV, and that it pertains more to another Sai Baba than to the one the article is about, and is heresay from a non-notable person and is not published in print, it seems totally dubious that it ought to remain. Thank you for removing it. Tommytocker 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war on this article. See Wikipedia:Edit war. Kkrystian has added the same disputed quote three times. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Rather than addressing the objections with arguments, Kkrystian has given only this response above: "IMO it is reliable because it only says that SHarada Devi says therfore it is OK." That does not address the concerns given, but simply makes an opinion of what is OK. The top of the article says, "This article is about Sai Baba of Shirdi, an Indian saint who lived from the mid-19th to the early 20th century. See Sai Baba for other persons calling themselves Sai Baba." The section that keeps getting put back is not published, is on a website for another Sai Baba (Sathya Sai Baba who says he is the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi), and the information inserted by Kkrystian does not even match the reference given -- which does not say what it is purported to say. This breaks so many Wiki principles it is hard to count. Poor biased source. Non-notable source. Unpublished source. Not even quoting source as it is. Writing about one Sai Baba in an article about another with the same name. Is hearsay ("she said he said") and is from a biased website with an ideological agenda. And finally the editor has replaced the exact same information three times with almost total disregard for arguments on this discussion page, citing their opinion ("IMO") as the principle by which it should be included. Tommytocker 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to Redtigerxyz's compromise solution (see my talk page). Kkrystian 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not interpret, what i said on Kkrystian's talk page as my support, I have just said that the material can be added only when WP:CON for it's inclusion is formed.(if it is formed). I continue to oppose the inclusion of the material.--Redtigerxyz 08:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Status

After carefully reading this article, and waiting for the recent edit dispute to be resolved, which it has, I have gone ahead and given it a GA status. Please see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for general criteria for GA status assignment. It is generally well written with good spelling and grammar. It is broad in coverage and generally well organized into categories beginning with biography and moving to other subjects in a logical order. It is relatively unbiased, given the difficult nature of a controversial religious figure. In addition, a minor recent dispute has been ended with a civil resolution and compromise by all sides, thus appears currently stable. No article is 'absolutely stable.' But its history of minor conflict and swift resolution is not outside the Wikipedia norm. It also has images. The last criteria and the hardest to determine is verifiability. This has to be examined in context to the kind of subject. There is no dispute that Sai Baba is enormously notable. Besides the traditional deities and avatars of traditional Hinduism, Sai Baba is probably the most common icon in current India, with his images found virtually everywhere. However, he lived in rural Maharastra and died in 1918, leaving no books of his own, and had no contemporaneous biographer. Therefore, due to the difference in culture and the period of history, there is little choice but to rely on the best websites and books that are written about him posthumously, mostly by sympathetic writers, to gain any information at all. If only western peer reviewed journal articles were relied upon, then virtually no article could be written at all. This is simply a limitation of the place, time, and natue of the subject, a mysterious personage mostly of the 19th century in India prior to much first-hand western investigation of such characters. By the 1930s western scholars such as Paul Brunton were actively investigating such figures, but in the turn of the century such scholarship was almost nonexistent. Therefore, some exception is deserved given these practical limitations. To balance this lack of expert skeptical witnesses, the writers seem to have been as careful as possible to remain impartial and to attribute claims to sources and witnesses of mostly devotees, and have asserted very little (beyond the place and time of Sai Baba's death) as absolutely determined and beyond any possible refutation. So I think the article is generally fair-minded, informative, and cites as many sources as are within the realm of possibility. The article also appears to be formatted within the conventions of Wikipedia, with proper heading and sections and in a sensible order. Remember that GA status is simply one step above B status, and this is definitely above a B status, which is one step above a start. See Template:Grading scheme. Cott12 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is a good article. There are only a few reputable peer reviewed articles (White, Rigopoulos, and Bowen)on the subject. And only very few of those sources have been used. And some of the contents from the peer reviewed articles has been removed by user:Kkrystian in spite of an RFC comments supporting its inclusion (see talk archive 1) Andries 10:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I will file a request for mediation

User:Kkrystian keeps on removed contents sourced to a peer reviewed source in spite of an RFC supporting its inclusion. By the way "violent" is not subjective. It is a factual description of some of Baba's acts. I admit though that "eccentric" tends to be subjective but I omitted that qualification in my latest edit.

Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi/Archive_1#I_filed_a_Wikipedia:Request_for_comments Andries 11:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

"His behaviour was sometimes uncouth and violent. "

The info is sourced thus not WP:OR. Thus its removal against WP:NPOV.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV includes praise as well as criticism.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. Perhaps someone should inform Kkrystian about it. - Ekantik ^talk 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently these are the arguments Kkrystian is using: "rev. 1. it is a biography section not a criticism section 2. the words are POV and shouldn't be used as facts. 3. Shirdi SaiBaba isn't the subject of the book given as source)":

1. Whether it is a bio or critic section is irrelevant. The statement is a general statement about Sai Baba of Shirdi's behaviour which is attested to even by his own close disciples. This argument is invalid.
2. Again, the statement is not POV because it is attested to even by the Baba's close disciples. Furthermore, the statement is referenced to a reliable source. This argument is invalid.
3. Whether the subject of the book is Sai Baba of Shirdi or not is again irrelevant, it is a general statement sourced reliably. On the other hand if this disturbs Kkrystian so much, I can produce similar references from other books on Shirdi Sai Baba that attest to "wild behaviour" and the like. Would that be a more reasonable proposal? - Ekantik ^talk 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the text Sourced removed again and replaced an WP:OR "Baba is known for growing angry quite often but it is interpreted by his devotees only an act put on in order to uplift them spiritually (e.g. to scold them for wrong doing)."?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The words "violent" and "uncouth" are both POV so they can't be stated as fact. Kkrystian (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better for all of us if you could take the time to read WP:NPOV, Kkrystian. Or better yet, go and ask some experienced editors what they think. or we could just save you the trouble and tell you that words such as "uncouth" and "violent" are okay as long as they are reliably sourced.

Personally I'm bewildered as to why this is such a problem. Even the primary sources of Shirdi Sai literature all confirm that Shirdi Baba exhibited violent and uncouth behaviour (as well as some other unsavoury epithets) and these reports come from his own disciples and contemporaries. I guess that is POV as well. Anyone who has taken the time to read even a pinch of Shirdi literature will agree that the Baba was violent and uncouth and this is not a problem for anyone. - Ekantik ^talk 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So here is the new edit: "Baba is known for growing angry quite often but it is interpreted by his devotees only an act put on in order to uplift them spiritually (e.g. to scold them for wrong doing).[citation needed]"

Are you serious? Is this a fan website or an online encyclopaedia? There is nothing encyclopaedic about this statement at all. Ekantik ^talk 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a just an encyclopedic statement as the previous one was. It's important to write about the interpretation of his actions because many Western readers may be unfamiliar with Indian culture & Hinduism. Kkrystian 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking over the talk-page archives and it seems several RFCs were filed and most of the editors were in favour of the quote being added in. It will be added back in again in due course, pending copyediting and sourced information. The reasons for its removal are not good enough. Ekantik ^talk 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources used in this article are incredibly poor. Specifically the book by Ruhela, as well as the information from the Kaleshwar website. They will be removed as copyediting takes place, better sources need to be found.

Ruhela, in particular, is well-known as a bad writer who doesn't check his facts and sources, who also self-publishes his books. Anything written by him is thus unreliable. Ekantik ^talk 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, go away with your insulting comments! If you want to make them than prove them. I read the book by Ruhela and I can say it's very well sourced. All you do is just going from talk page to talk page, criticising people without giving arguments. This book is not self published either. Kkrystian 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulting comments? Where did I insult anybody? You haven't exactly shown from your comment how the book is "very well sourced". Kkrystian, if you cannot behave in a civil manner then may I suggest you refrain from this sort of behaviour? Your responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to refrain from making personal attacks.

You obviously haven't read widely on the subject. I can tell you that I have read several books by Satya Pal Ruhela, which is what comes of being an expert editor. Ruhela is very bad writer who does not check his sources, he publishes "facts" about Shirdi Sai Baba based on the "recollections of past lives" of people. This means that if someone claims to have been with Shirdi Sai Baba in a past life and "recalls" all their memories and experiences with him, Ruhela will write this up as fact and publish it as if it were actual details about ShSB's life! He has done this several times and with several people, and does not even bother to consider whether these "facts" are true or not.

Fancy that! Writing books of "new revelations" about Shirdi Sai Baba straight from people's imaginations. One thing I will give him credit for is the fact that at least he's honest about where he gets his info. Unfortunately these sources are not good enough for Wikipedia and do not count as reliable sources. I wish pseudoscience was a close-enough term for what Ruhela produces. He even writes books about the end of the world based on what some psychics say. Not a good source.

It has also already been agreed that there is few material that is based on reputable sources: Rigopoulos and a couple of others. These are the sources that we are going to use and improve this article. I'm afraid that we are here to create an encyclopaedia and I don't care about people's preferences about what should be in the article aside WP policies. Unreliable references will have to be removed and replaced with better references. I have plenty of books on Shirdi Sai Baba which are good sources, so this is what I'm going to do. But first, copyediting to get it to an acceptable NPOV standard, before I add anything new.

If you have a problem with that, the onus is on you to prove how exactly Ruhela is a good source. Until I see evidence of his "scholarship", I'm not going to accept him as a reliable source. After all, anything he has to say has already been said by proper scholars and researchers, so there is no reason why they cannot be referenced. I strongly suggest, Kkrystian, that you refrain from passing nasty remarks and antagonising other editors. Ekantik ^talk 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of some incredibly bad writing that I've discovered after copyediting Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi#Early_life: Where does the information about being born in a Brahmin family in Pathri come from? The Sri Sai Satcharita. Apparently Sai Baba told this to Mhalsapathy, says who? Ruhela. Now where did Ruhela get this information from? He probably got it from one of the contemporary literature that would be much better source material to have been quoted in the first place, like B.V. Narasimhaswami for example. But just one problem: it is very well known that Shirdi SB's origin are unknown, so where do the names of his parents come from later on in the paragraph?

If you want to talk about "nonsense", Kkrystian, here is a prime example of nonsense: a contradictory paragraph. On one hand Shirdi Sai Baba's birth details are unknown, yet his parent's names are suddenly plucked out of the air. This doesn't require a fact-tag, it is plain nonsense. The birth details of ShSB are unknown.

But I am going to assume good faith, Kkrystian. I'm going to fact-tag some of these problem areas and give you some time to come up with the proper source references from peer-reviewed scholarly works on the subject, not Ruhela's pamphlet-type books. Ekantik ^talk 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ad the fragment about the names of his parents. Somebody else did quite recently (I think they also gave some source). You can look through the edit history to see who it was. Kkrystian 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to check but I'll take your word for it. I apologise for assuming that you had included that tidbit about ShSB's parents' names. Ekantik ^talk 04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruhela's books unacceptable

I just found some academic criticism of Ruhela made by a real academic, a (late) Professor at the University of Toronto:

“ Satya Pal Ruhela, in his recent book What Researchers Say On Sri Shirdi Sai Baba,also appears to equate Gunaji's English adaptation with the original Marathi biography, as he gives no separate bibliographic entry for Gunaji.Ruhela does not even mention Dabholkar's original 1929 date of publication, but lists it as 1944, the date of the English adaptation. ” — Dr. Marianne Warren, Unravelling The Enigma, p.6. (1999)

So there we go, a doctor of philosophy and a professor who researched and wrote a proper book on Shirdi Sai Baba formally criticises Ruhela for getting a simple thing like getting a book publication date wrong. Not a massive error in itself, but in relation to ShSB there is a major difference between the Marathi original and the English adaptation in terms of selective translation and interpolation. If Ruhela was a genuine scholar/academic, he would have known that there is a substantial difference between the Marathi original and the English so-called translation. The fact that he equates them means that he sees no difference between interpolated information and original information. In other words, Ruhela is a bad and unreliable source for information about ShSB and for Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 19:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I've just found another one which is more serious:

“ What Researchers Say On Sri Shirdi Sai Baba, by Ruhela (1994), reviews forty writers and researchers on Sai Baba, from Das Ganu's devotional works at the turn of the century, to Rama Rao's article in a souvenir publication in 1994. Although it purports to be an academic endeavour, from a scholarly point of view it is very imprecise in its research, not giving sufficient detail with regard to: original dates of publication; original language and translations, biographies of the contributors; other books written by the contributors; current availability of these books; or the details of additions and changes made to revised editions. The material is listed and discussed chronologically by year of publication, not always accurately, and unfortunately makes no distinction between major contributions and minor works. Ruhela quotes hagiographical stories as fact, and information given by Sathya Sai Baba about Shirdi Sai Baba without any qualification.

Ruhela makes an extraordinary statement at the end of his piece about Das Ganu: 'Das Ganu's findings have stood the test of time; all these are believed to be cent per cent true by all Sai devotees and researchers on Baba's divine life.' However, current books such as those by Bharadwaja, Kamath and Kher and Rigopoulos seriously question the validity of many of Das Ganu's statements. Ruhela's conclusions are therefore not supported by the recent literature on the subject. Lastly, Ruhela does not deal at all with the issue of the apparent Hindu gloss given to Sai Baba.

” — Dr. Marianne Warren, Unravelling The Enigma, p.19. (1999)

I rest my case. Ekantik ^talk 19:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference about Rani of Jhansi

In regards to Kkrystian's question about why I removed the ref. about ShSB being a soldier in the Rani of Jhansi's army:

1. I didn't remove the reference, I fact-tagged it which I said I would do above. I fact-tagged it because it is not sourced to a reliable reference.
2. The reference is wrong. Shirdi literature states that ShSB stated that he was a soldier in Jhansi Rani's army, but this can be sourced to a better reference than Ruhela for reasons given above. Have patience, it is coming.
3. In future it might be better to discuss these issues on the talk-page rather than asking the question in an edit summary. This is not a proper use of the edit summary function. See Wikipedia:Edit summary. Ekantik ^talk 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Boycotting the Ruhela book because somebody thinks its wrong, is unfair. Please do not remove the Ruhela references. Quote contradictory evidence. "Shirdi literature states that ShSB stated that he was a soldier in Jhansi Rani's army" is right but the reference is wrong., I didn't get this paradox. Ruhela reference is good enough if the fact it references is true. No better sources needed then.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruhela's works are not an acceptable source for Wikipedia due to the reasons given in above sections. For a start, he has made several grievous errors and doesn't do any fact-checking of his own, he has also been criticised by other academics who have brought out far superior works on the subject of ShSB.

Also, the Ruhela references as they stand do not give very much information, so there is not very much to contradict. There is tons of superior material from other works (Rigopoulos, Warren, etc). Frankly, Ruhela is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba in his personal life (who claims to be the reincarnation of ShSB) and accepts Sathya's comments about ShSB as if they were fact. The unfortunate thing is that he actually publishes those remarks as if they were fact, which is why his works are not a reliable source about ShSB. Unlike Rigopoulos and Warren, academics who have gone out of their way to do some real research on ShSB's origins, etc. For example, it is a well-known controversy about whether ShSB was really a Hindu or a Muslim. Based on Warren's fantastic research, we now have evidence that strongly suggests that ShSB was of Muslim origin and which is (partially) endorsed by committee members of the Sansthan. So these are the sort of things that have to be highlighted in the article, proper encyclopaedic information, not Ruhela's lazy wishy-washy excuse for research.

Anyway, the quote about ShSB being a soldier in the army of the Rani of Jhansi has now been supported by a direct quote from BV Narasimhaswamiji's seminal work. This can only be a good thing, I believe. Hope that helps. Ekantik ^talk 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sugestion

I think an interested editor should rewrite and source the following sentence from the intro:

"He is also revered by several notable Hindu, Sufi and Zoroastrian religious leaders. Some of his disciples received fame as spiritual figures and saints."

I think someone could rewrite it to specify who the notable religious leaders are and who those disciples are.

TheRingess (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that section needs some work. Trouble is, I'm unsure about the information myself. Perhaps the editor who added in that information can confirm which leaders he was referring to. But I agree that it needs to be rewritten anyhow. Ekantik ^talk 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing reliably-sourced information

Kkrystian removed an entire block of text (fully wikilinked and referenced, to boot) simply because he did not like it. This is addressed in WP:ITSCRUFT. In his edit summary:

1. He claims that it is POV and untrue, despite the fact that the information was fully referenced in an academic source. By removing this information and by falsely claiming that it is POV, Kkrystian is removing reliably-sourced information. See WP:V.
2. He claims that the information at hand "suggested that ShSB rejected Hinduism and only practiced Muslim rituals which contradicts the Sai Satcharitra". Nowhere did the passage make any mention whatsoever of "rejecting Hinduism". Rather, the article is always being contributed to and it is only a matter of time before someone (like myself) adds in information about ShSB's "Hindu" practices. Kkrystian could have done this himself. Instead, he chose to delete reliably-sourced information on a false premise. This is extremely bad Wikipedia practice, and is tantamount to saying that this information about ShSB's life is not useful for Wikipedia. Why isn't it?
3. By deleting reliably-sourced information on the basis that it appears that ShSB only practised Islamic rituals, Kkrystian is harming the article by removing the reliably-sourced information that ShSB practised Islamic rituals!
4. I personally don't care what the "Sai Satcharita" says because it is a perfect example of a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources over primary sources. The Sai Satcharita can be sourced to make a specific point (if necessary), but secondary sources are preferred.
5. I personally don't think that Kkrystian has read the Sai Satcharita properly, because information about ShSB in secondary sources can only have come from primary sources like the Sai Satcharita. Thus, the Sai Satcharita itself confirms that ShSB used to indulge in Islamic rituals.
6. Of course, ShSB practised "Hindu rituals" also. This is something that has to be added in. Wikipedia is a place where we add information, not take it away. Not without good reason of course.
7. I strongly suggest that Kkrystian should read up on his ShSB literature and refrain from deleting reliably-sourced information without a proper explanation. Of course, it would also be good if he could add in good information and reliably source it. However, I'm still waiting for his explanations about Ruhela (see above).
8. Lastly, one important fact should be remembered: This article is not a hagiography. Therefore it will contain reliably-sourced information that may be controversial to some quarters. The aim is to provide a balanced look at the life of ShSB, who happens to be an extraordinarily enigmatic figure.

-Ekantik ^talk 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am now in posession of the Rigopoulos, Warren, Kamath & Kher, and Bharadwaj sources, as well as primary sources like Satcharita and Narasimhaswami's works. Plus one other text. So now we have some good sources to work with. Ekantik ^talk 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Sai baba's first miracle should be described; changing water into wine oil, because it gave him global fame in the village of Shirdi. Andries (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just padding out the bio sections and then we'll definitely get to the miracles. Ekantik ^talk 04:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Baba

Baba has no Sanskrit origins, but the word is used frequently in day-to-day (spoken) Marathi meaning "father". --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. It means "father" in Arabic too. I wonder whether this is due to language adaptation brought about during the Muslim invasion of India? I checked out some online sources but was unable to come up with anything definite, although the majority of Arabic-English online dictionaries translate "Baba" as "father". Rigopoulos mentions that Baba means "father" in Hindi, this is obviously wrong since the "correct" term for father in Hindi is "pita". Sanskrit is pitṛ.

It's kinda hard to strike a balance betwen relying on reliable sources and staying away from original research. On the one hand, it is possible that the Marathi terminology of Baba could be employed, and on the other hand, the Arabic term of 'Baba' could be an indicator of his Muslim/Sufi origins. Very interesting... I'll look into it further, most of the sources I have are rather silent on this matter and prefer to dicuss the 'Sai' part of his name. I hope we don't run into problems over that lol! Ekantik ^talk 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sanskritic "pita" is also used in "written" Marathi. Thus Rigopoulos may not be wrong in saying Baba means "father" in "spoken" hindi. Another version of Baba is simply "Ba" (father) used in names of local dieties - Vithoba (brick-father), Khandoba (sword-father), Jyotiba (light-father) etc. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "Bābā is a word meaning "father" used in Indian languages" is Ok , it to be Arabic in nature (in context of Sai baba) needs a ref, if it is to be added again.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one may as well as for refs to show how 'Baba' is used in Indian languages. Apart from Marathi as per your words above, there is no indication that 'Baba' means father in any other Indian languages? As for the Arabic, one only has to look at Wiktionary to see that Baba is a Persian word. Based on this information, I take back my statement that it is Arabic but if no one objects, I'll change the text back tomorrow to refer to "Baba's" ultimately Persian origins. Looking at the text as it is, it seems ultimately redundant as the point about Persian origins was already made earlier: "The name 'Sai Baba' is a combination of Persian ... Sāī (Sa'ih) is the Persian term for "holy one" or "saint", usually attributed to Islamic ascetics...." - Ekantik ^talk 05:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, this Arabic language manual (PDF) for spoken word recognition says that Baba is Arabic. Not a highly reliable source, but... Ekantik ^talk 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikibooks for marathi use of baba and Rigopoulos for Hindi use.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a user-created manual, not really a reliable source. :) But never mind, I've checked the source material and they're either silent on the origin of 'Baba' or they follow Rigopoulos and term it of Hindustani origin. Makes no difference, I think we can just leave it for now, "used in Indian languages" amounts to the same thing. Ekantik ^talk 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

11 Sayings

Just wondering if anyone has a source for the famous "11 Sayings" that are published everywhere in ShSB literature? How did it originate, etc? Warren mentions that it is hagiographical, does anyone else know of a source for it? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sayings need a ref. Raised by me in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sai Baba of Shirdi/archive2 when i opposed. One of things that needs refs among others. Also i remember adding a fact tag, somebody just removed it without supplying a ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that, I wasn't aware of that page. Those are things that definitely need some work. Do you think that the 11 sayings should be removed, or would it be enough to mention Warren's "hagiographical" comment in a footnote? Pending further editing of course, it is likely that those 11 sayins may end up somewhere else in the article. Ekantik ^talk 01:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The material is better suited for Wikiquote, than this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention Sathya...?

Sorry to bring this up again and again, but I find it very unreasonably not to mention Sathya Sai Baba here. I mean, there is a link, the latter says he's an incarnation of the former, and Sathya Sai Baba, like it or not, is much more famous than Sai Baba of Shirdi. So, why not mention it? Avoiding it creates more confussion (are they related?, was one the master of the other?, where they the same person?) than simply stating the facts. Well, I know the info, but I was surprised that it wasn't here. That sounds POV to me. Nazroon (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That Sathya says he was Sai Baba of Shirdi in a past life is not a fact about Sai Baba of Shirdi. It is a fact about Sathya and belongs on his page where it is. It is not part of Shirdi Sai Baba's life, is not found in his teachings, is not taught or believed by his followers. It is an opinion by Sathya about Sathya. And it belongs in the article about Sathya. It's not just an opinion that it is not part of Sai Baba's biography or teaching. It is a neutral fact. LittleDoGooder (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The info used to be there, referenced to reliable secondary sources about Shirdi Sai Baba. Though I am no fan of Sathya, the reincarnation claim by Sathya is mentioned (and sometimes treated) in reliable sources about Shirdi Sai Baba (e.g. Rigopoulos) and as such belongs here too. I admit though that Sathya's reincarnation claim is not accepted by the vast majority of Shirdi Sai Baba's followers. Andries (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are generally interested in verifiable facts. We only have Sathya's claim as evidence of his past lives. However, it is a fact that this is his claim. Still, I'm not sure what Sathya's claims about himself have to do with Sai Baba of Shirdi. It could fit in a Trivia section or a section specifically called "Claims by Sathya Sai Baba." But I'm still not clear what Sathya's beliefs have to do with Sai Baba of Shirdi - the man. They seem to be facts entirely about the life and teachings of Sathya Sai Baba. If they are included here, it would have to be made clear that these are not the beliefs of the Shirdi Sai Baba followers, nor a teaching by Shirdi Sai Baba. Otherwise, people stumbling on this page could come to think this was a belief stated by Shirdi Sai Baba - since it would be on his article.LittleDoGooder (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rigopoulos wrote in his biography about Shirdi Sai Baba that Sai Baba of Shirdi was a favorite subject for reincarnation claimants. He mentioned several and treated Sathya Sai Baba extensively. It is in the history of the article. Andries (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It could go into a legacy section. Andries (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth of Sri Shirdi Saibaba?

There is no authentic proof, When and Where Sri Shirdi Saibaba is born. follow this URL for http://saibaba.com/holyshirdi/saibaba/index-2.html details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.157.191 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

Change "Samadhi" to "Sannidanam" Please change "Samadhi" name to "Sannidanam". Sannidanam means Sachidananda Swaroopam SriSuryaBharadwaj (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

​Which source mentions that? – Thjarkur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Request you to update Sri Shirdi Sai Baba gotra as Bharadwajasa gotra as per the "SriPada SriVallabha Charithamrutham". SriSuryaBharadwaj (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

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)

 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)

Presenting fiction as facts?

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

"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)

Is he thought by his devotees or isn't he? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Starting line of the Sai Baba of Shirdi

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)

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)