Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Sansthan including its wealth and controverys about government confiscation, possibly a separate article
  2. spin off and inspiration to other gurus, incl. Upasni Maharaj and indirectly to Meher Baba (via Upasani (sp.) Maharaj) (partially done)
  3. write about the Sri Sai Satcharita
This is a copy of the dicussion on the talk:sai Baba moved to this talk page by user:Andries because the discussion was only about Shirdi Sai Baba. Please do not remove this notice. Andries 11:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AN OPEN REQUEST TO ALL USERS (who are intersted in this article)

Whoever has an idea of how to find reliable and reputable sources for this article, please inform others about it on the talk page. Whoever, is in possession of reliable and reputable sources for this article please include some info from them. Thank you in advance. 12 Dec. 2006 18:24 (UTC+1) Kkrystian

[edit] Why is he appearing in the Sufi category?

Sufism is a branch of Islamic teaching. While Sai Baba of Shirdi was respected by some Muslims, he was not a Muslim, and therefore can not be a Sufi.Hassanfarooqi 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Bala Sai Baba really claim to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba??

For what it's worth, page 5201 of Bhau Kalchuri's 20-volume biography of Meher Baba, LORD MEHER, states, "For example, Sai Baba of Shirdi, who was the Qutub-e-Irshad (head of the five living Perfect Masters and the spiritual hierarchy. timber 2000

Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted in the article is the same as text from this webpage:

http://www.shrisaibabasansthan.org/temple/index.htm (copyright notice from site: Copyright © 2000-2004, Shri Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi) sannse 16:22 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I added some extra information about Sai Baba. I hope I can find the book by Antonio Rigopoulos soon which must enough to end the stub status.

Generally followers of a guru are more than happpy if you copy their information and won't sue you for copyright infringement but I am more concerned about gullibility, accuracy & NPOV when copying things from the website Sai Baba's followers.

Andries 16:22 Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

LordsuryaofShropshire, I have read the scholarly book by Antonio Rigouplos about him and he called him a fakir. (I forgot quite a lot by the way) I do think that this is an appropriate title for Sai Baba. Guru is a good title too. Andries 21:49, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have done a lot of study on him recently and have been finding out from Marathis about him. I am quite intrigued and would like to write a lot more on him, especially since, living in Mumbai for many years, I never really bothered to learn about who this man was I saw all around me. --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Not an easy task

61.1.200.58 wrote It is not an easy task to narrate the life of a Yogi like Sai Baba, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Sai is just a name to identify him as he existed in the physical form. Paramatma (the Supreme Soul) has no name. --Vyzasatya 01:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

Is it my impression, or has this article been seriously linkspammed? Zanaq 19:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

true, thanks for not copying to the Dutch version. I have read the book by Rigopoulos so if time permits may seriously expand this article and the Dutch version. Andries 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be great, and while you're at it you might prune some links ;-) I'd do it myself, but this is not my thing. Zanaq 22:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sansthan taken over by the governmemt?

I read some articles a few years ago that the Sansthan was taken over by the government. Does anyone know more about it? Andries 09:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No criticism?

There's a book accusing Sai Baba of being a fake in Japanese, "Hadaka no Saibaba" (http://homepage3.nifty.com/hirorin/bookssaibaba.htm). I would like to see somebody incorporate information from this book into this article.

Probably this book deals about the other Sai Baba. The mentioning of Indian CSICOP in the webpage indicates this strongly. Andries 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the other saints who are also called "Saibabas" with this original saint. Shri Shridi Saibaba lived around 1850 till he left the world (called Mahasamidhi) in 1918. Other saints in Andhra Pradesh using the same name such as "Satya Sai Baba" "Bala Sai Baba" came around recently sometime after 1950s. Shiridi Saibaba has no link or connection or relation with others. Most of Hindus/Indians know this fact, so the refer this original saint as "Shiridi Sai Baba".

[edit] Redundant Content

The eleven techings/promises are repeated please check.

No they are not User:Kkrystian 02.11.2006 20:15 (UTC+1)

[edit] Include URL link to our web site with reference info on Shirdi Saibaba

We are a chartiable trust engaged in propagating the message of Shirdi Saibaba. Our web site has a lot of useful reference information on Shirdi Saibaba. Please include a reference to our web site [1] in this subject page.

Thanks.

K.V. Ramani K.V. Ramani 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

There is no need to add this page into the Sathya Sai Baba category page as a disambiguation link is placed at the top of the page. Please stop doing this. Ekantik 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Shirdi Sai Baba is connected with Sathya SAi Baba and in my opinion the article about him (Shirdi Sai Baba) should be in the category:Sathya Sai Baba User:Kkrystian 05.11.2006 20:15 (UTC+1)

That purpose is already served by the disambiguation link at the top of the page. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions, only authentic material is meant for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:NOT. Ekantik 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rigopoulous book

Despite this being an academic source, it is problematic because a lot of Rigopoulos' research contains unverified information such as Shirdi Sai Baba's date of birth, and other things that don't appear to have their origin in contemporaneous and contemporary Sai literature. Just making a point. Ekantik 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rigopoulos may sometimes be uncritical and esp. gullible regarding what Sathya Sai Baba said about Shirdi Sai Baba, but in general it can be used as a source, I think. His book states on page 3 that "No historical evidence is available concerning the time and place of birth [..] ". Andries 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please find good sources

I requested a referenc for among other the following statement One of his favorite sayings was "Why do you fear when I am here"

Then the refernce was added by user:Krystian htttp://www.saibaba.org

I suspect that is an improper reference hence I ask the following questions

1. What indication is there that this website is a reputable source about Sai Baba. ?
2. Where can I find the stament "One of his favorite sayings was "Why do you fear when I am here" "?

Thanks in advance. Andries 18:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Andries
http://www.saibaba.org must be trusted because it is one of the most reliable sources about Shirdi Sai Baba you can find. The statement "Why fear when I am here" used to be here: http://chavadi.saibaba.org:8080/index.htm. It was in the Macromedia Flash animation. I don't know where the admins of http://saibaba.org have put it now. 22:07 9 Dec. 2006 (UTC+1) Kkrystian
Such religious websites, like http://www.saibaba.org generally do not care much about intellectual accuracy, so I do not think it is a reliable source. I think that the hagiographic book Shri Sai Satcharita by Hemadpant is fine to describe beliefs and practices. The book by Antonio Rigopoulos seems to be more suitable for a serious biography though little seems certain about his life. Andries 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that www.saibaba.org is a reliable website (except may be to describe beliefs and practices) because
1. It is not an official website
2. I can see no effort on the website to maintain intellectual accuracy (citations foot notes etc. ) and thus inaccuracies that fit the need to provide inspiration, devotional stories, and guidance for its readers will easily slip in.
Andries 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Andries, I agree with Kkrystian that you may be off the mark here. Primary Sai Baba sources are limited in the west and in English. saibaba.org provides a resonable source for Sai Baba sayings. Anyone who has visited Shirdi has seen these sayings plastered over all sorts of souvenirs, banners, boodks, etc. They are very much attributed to Sai, and so far as I know, no one disputes that attribution. There is no particular controversy that Sai didn't say these things, at least none that I am aware of, and I think based on my 20+years interest I would have run across this sort of controversy if it existed.

I don't know that any source about Sai provides 'objective' or 'verifiable' information in the Wwstern academic sense. But it would be foolishness to begin to cherrypick from a book (like Hemadpant) as a 'good source', and to disallow cherrypicking from website (like saibaba.org). There is certainly no evidence to suggest that saibaba.org is any way a conterversial or deviant site run by some sort of wingnut fringe group. It seems to be very mainstream in its approach.

As the WP states: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. This as opposed to straight-up opinion or original, nonpublished research. You can look these quotes up. You can find then decide whether or not to trust the reference source. So I think they pass this test.--Nemonoman 15:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the following statement from the somewhat critical article by Rohit Arya on the India yogi website is accurate and supports my opinion that we should be very careful with using websites run by followers
"Amongst his many devotees there is a breathtaking disregard for evidence and a dazzling susceptibility to the miraculous. In fact as a rule of thumb, a miraculous rather than natural explanation for any act of his is normally preferred. Sai Baba has suffered the fate of all saints - he is swallowed by the hagiographies. Even by Indian standards however his life makes for most peculiar reading. He has become transformed into a myth, rather than a real person of great spiritual attainments."
Andries 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but your beef was with using saibaba.org as a reference to a QUOTE, not to a miracle, nor to some sort of apotheosis. I think saibaba.org is a reasonable source for quotes. --Nemonoman 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Neoman, I know only one "source about Sai provides 'objective' or 'verifiable' information in the Western academic sense" that is the book by Antonio Rigopoulos that I own. Andries 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Do you think that this article should therefore be based entirely on that one source? I would certainly have concerns about that methodology.--Nemonoman 17:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If that is the only reputable source available then so be it. Andries 18:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Does only source==reputable, in your view?
What specific elements of the Sai Baba article does your only reputable source disagree with?
Or are we to assume also that Rigopoulos is not only reputable but absolutely comprehensive and absolutely complete...that there is no element of fact regarding Sai that is wrong, or that has failed to be included. That Rigopoulos has in effect managed to manifest in the world of form the Akashic Records.
And if Rigopoulos is perfect and complete, how will we ever manage to vary from his copywritten text without causing falsehood.
This is a conundrum, and no mistake.--Nemonoman 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia can only write on a subject in so far reputable sources have reported on a subject. I admit that there is a problem with having only one reputable source, but this is a problem that Wikipedia cannot solve. Andries 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if primary sources could or should be used, such as official Sai Baba books or the works of Narasimha Swami. I suppose they can be used in highlighting the main points of his life but Rigopoulos is a secondary source. Its a shame about some of his own accuracies, I think. ekantiK talk 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The primary source is significantly more desirable, in my view. This view: Wikipedia can only write on a subject in so far reputable sources have reported on a subject. is not part of any official WP Policy that I am aware of.
It is foolish and disingenous to declare out of hand that some fairly reasonable source for quotations is not valid (with no particulars as to WHY it should not be valid), and further to declare that some other source is the single and only valid reference for a Wikipedia article. That's just nonsense. --Nemonoman 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Scholars

See my comment on the WikiProject Muslim scholars discussion page. I don't get how Sai relates to this project. --Nemonoman 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Ekantik talk 04:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Neither do I. Shirdi Sai Baba should be in the WikiProject Islam not in the WikiProject Muslim Scholars. He was a Muslim saint (fakir) but not a Muslim scholar. Kkrystiantalk 12:03 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006
Ok, ill buy that. --Striver 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

I'm going to try to find some reputable sources and content which can hopefully add to the quality of this article. However, I have rather a lot of articles requiring attention, so I can't be sure just when I will be able to focus much attention on this one. Badbilltucker 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm already on it. I'm just caught up with some other pending Wiki-issues at the moment but I'll get on this article asap. Ekantik talk 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And pending a cleanup, is there any justification for the use of an infobox when there is no information to put in it? Having a useless infobox with no useful information is unnecessary. Ekantik talk 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
See [2]. While I do not consider the Da organization credible in themselves, the leader Frank Jones claimed that Shirdi Sai Baba appeared to him on the subtle plane and aided his mission, so they have done a good job of locating references on Shirdi Sai Baba. The Osborne book I read long ago, is very good and has nothing to do with SSB.

--Dseer 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

This is a suggestion that the editors of this site might consider. If it is not to someone's liking then let it go. It's only a suggestion. There are an enormous number of articles that link to Sai Baba of Shirdi. [3] It is unfortunate that they arrive at a site with 3 giant banners at the top, making the article appear as an argumentative mess. I am a member of the Wikipedia Hinduism Project. When I have wanted help I will put a notice there, but will not defase the article itself. This accomplishes the aim of gathering knowledgable help without clouding the Wikipedia navigating experience for outsiders. In other words, it's an inside quarrel. The fact that these 3 templates have remained on the face of the page in spite of at least one editor complaining that it was an over-kill, suggests to me that at least one person is emotionally attached to marring the face of this fakir. So this brings me to my suggestion. Please, for the sake of Wikipedias millions of users, can these front page templates be removed? There are other ways of gaining good aceademic help besides making the article look ridiculous. If anything that scares away real aceademics. I hope the person who has insisted on these templates will give this some heartfelt thought. Do or don't. Whether or not Sai Baba performed miracles or not, or whether he was Muslim or Hindu, he still stood for love and honesty. So he's worth letting the world see his face. Thanks for listening. Chris 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The birth year of 1838 is not certain. See the talk page. I will revert. Andries 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I had a talk on Cott12's talk page and he seems to indicate that the DOB comes from "Lord Meher", which is apparently a published book. However I agree that it is generally unverified so please go ahead and revert if you wish. In a matter of days I will beging wholesale work on the article so I may rewrite the whole thing anyway. Ekantik talk 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk-page tags - Ridiculous!

Who has signed up this article for so many Wikiprojects? This is irresponsible! The talk page was cluttered up with all of those tags before I made them small. If no rationale is given as to why this article should be under the supervision of several different Wikiprojects, I will remove them. Ekantik talk 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been more than a month. Get rid of these, since no one has discussed or objected. --Nemonoman 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Let's not get into an edit war here. I happen to disagree with Kkrystian's revert because it removed a perfectly good source provided by Andries. Appears to be a careless revert, please read the Do's and Dont's of Reverting for guidance in this context.

However, for a compromise I reverted back to Andries' previous version while re-adding the quotes advocated by Kkrystian. However I have removed the hyperlinks because they do not count as proper references and may actually be treated as linkspam. As I've said earlier I'll begin work on this article soon so this may all be academic. Ekantik talk 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, I do not think that the source ( http://chavadi.saibaba.org:8080/index.htm ) for the following quotes is a good a one.
  • "Why do you fear when I am here"
  • "He has no beginning... He has no end"
  • "All things arise from him and into him they return".
I could live with the Sri Sai Sathcarita as a source.
What indication is there that the webpage is a good source? Why doesn't the webpage mention the source of the quotes?
Andries 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's OK, Andries, you can remove them if you doubt their veracity. When I begin work I'll be quoting printed sources where necessary so you cna go ahead and remove doubtful references if you wish. Ekantik talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split into Shirdi Sai Baba movement

I understand that this is supposed to a be a serious biography though very little facts are known about his life. In contrast there is a huge mythology and a big diverse movement came to exist after his death. I think that there should be a separate article Shirdi Sai Baba movement that describes these mythologies. Andries 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean since I am not aware of a movement as such, could you kindly give a couple of examples please? Anyhow if you think a split is warranted then that's good I guess. Ekantik talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, I don't think the Sai article is big enough to justify a split. The rise of the Sai movement should properly be a topic in this article in my opinion. This could reasonably include mention of Sathya Sai Baba and other celebrities saying they have some sort of connection to Sai.--Nemonoman 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting recent edits by Asterias

I have reverted a number of recent edits by a new editor, Asterias. If Asterias wishes to dispute this revert, I'm pleased to listen! I don't understand the relevance of the Notable Devotees section, nor what the criteria for inclusion in this section should be (other than Asterias's opinion). The description of the publishing concern sounds extremely much like an advertisement; I'd like to understand its relevance. The Bibliography is meant to reference works used in documenting the article; it is not meant to be a general collection of books about the subject. If Asterias wants to add info based on the book with references, then the book should be added to the Bibliography. --Nemonoman 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A relevant link was removed by some Admin? Why?

It's very unfortunate that a link to http://www.shirdi-sai-baba.com was removed. This website is dedicated to Shirdi Sai Baba. Admin comments that this website doesnt have anything SPECIAL about Sai Baba.

Sharing some information regarding the website:

  • A 4PR website
  • Pages Index in Google: 260 (it was around 16000 pages last week)
  • Pages Index in Yahoo: 21,600
  • 2 Entries in DMOZ & Google Directory
  • In Top 10 position with all main keywords in all search engines.
  • A 5 years old website with unique contenst.
  • Biggest website on Shirdi Sai Baba

Wiki links doesnt help to improve the PR or SEO listing and I don't care about this. It's really funny to see such comments.

Well if you guys dont know about Sai Baba then please ask a Sai Baba Devotee before removing such an important link.

Now just wanted to know why this website should not be here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hindujyoti (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The opinion of "Sai Baba devotees" are not required to decide whether an external link should be in the article. There are already a huge number of external links that do not deserve to be linked, mainly because they tend to repeat what every other website says. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, so aside from observing WP:EL we have to consider whether the website offers something unusual that other websites don't. What exactly is "unique" about it? The translations of the Satcharita are far more important as far as I can see, what to speak of the official Sansthan site.
Why not try working on the article instead of advertising websites? This article is horribly underwritten and, though I have been promising to work on it for some time, I am unable due to real-life commitments and caught up in other articles too. So why not add more information to the article and improve it thereof? Ekantik talk 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI - Hey it's not an advertising. (And I know Wiki links may not help to improve the position). It's just about RIGHT and WRONG. Also, opinion of "Sai Baba devotees" is not required but dont you think the devotees or (Real Visitor) will choose the right website based on the contents and relevancy of the webiste. Thats what I mean to say. Most of the devotees or visitor (in your languge) search for Sai Satcharitra (in multi language), Sai Photos, Shirdi Information, Screen Savers, Forum etc. You may find everything in that website. MY AIM is to redirect Sai Devotees to right direction. I have no intention of placing just a fake "Link" to Wiki. I will very much involve with this article very soon. Thanks for your time, help and understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hindujyoti (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
For what it's worth, I am interested in Sai, but not a follower. I think the link is a good one to allow, and I agree that it should remain. --Nemonoman 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is chaotic

The section "Religion, philosophy and practices" is very chaotic. The article requires corrections and expansion. I will be translating fragments from the Polish Wikipedia article which is much longer and near to FA status. Krystian 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allah malik

Allah malik (اﷲ مَلِك) is Arabic for "god is king", not "GOD is the Owner of us All.", as previous version of this article said. --83.131.162.157 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/i/Talk%7ESai_Baba_of_Shirdi_14cc.html"