Talk:Baba Farid

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Correct Title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, AnupamTalk 18:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Fariduddin Ganjshakar]] 

message: /* 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)
thread_title: Gradndson of Ibn Adham

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Reconsidering "Baba Farid" as the title