Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I will file a request for mediation 

message: I just found some academic criticism of Ruhela made by a real academic, a (late) Professor at the University of Toronto:
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)
thread_title: Ruhela's books unacceptable

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sugestion 

message: 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:
#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.
#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?
#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!
#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. 
#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.
#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.
#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).
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Removing reliably-sourced information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The material is better suited for Wikiquote, than this article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 Sayings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It could go into a legacy section. Andries (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not mention Sathya...? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of Birth of Sri Shirdi Saibaba? 

message: Change "Samadhi" to "Sannidanam"
Please change "Samadhi" name to "Sannidanam".
Sannidanam means Sachidananda Swaroopam SriSuryaBharadwaj (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source mentions that? – Thjarkur (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020