Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi/Archive 1

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

Redundant Content
The eleven techings/promises are repeated please check.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

New Article            It is quite high time that govt. of maharashtra steps into the affairs of the mandir. last time I was there I met and got to see for myself the CEO of the mandir Mr. Waghchoure(something like that)and his ways of handling the routine of the samsthan. dat guy is immeresed in courption to the core- for instance the annual tender for scrap- till the last iota, the entire process stinks. Also if the revenue of the temple is the higgest in the world and if samsthan had almost deciede to make golden throne for MY POOR BABA- then why not regularise all the employees and pay them (mostly the employees are poorly paid or are kept hanging for months- i myself had worked there for a month so I Know first hand.)The only people who are paid out r the people close to the CEO. Apart from Baba is there anyone in this world who knows the problem- cant sai bhaktas all across wake to this plight and make demands for complete overhaul of the system in the samsthan. Also the level of POLITICS in the Samsthan is that as compared to proffessional POLICTICS in New Delhi Parliament House. WAKE UP SAI BHAKTAS - When u go to shirdi see the process for your self- u yourself will be ashamed to see the going on in the House of Baba - I'm sure Baba must be turning around in the grave all frustated. A Concerend Sai Bhakta
 * I read that the Sansthan is very rich and that the govt wants to take over the Sansthan. Andries 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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 in this subject page.

Thanks.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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. 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)

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 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)

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)


 * I've already split it. Kkrystian 11:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Assessment
It is quite well written so far. If you can combine some of the shorter section and add in some more inline citation then you can take it to WP:GAC. Not Featured Article quality yet, but on the right track.-- Wizardman 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a lousy article because hardly any statement is sourced to reputable sources. If somebody removes all the poorly sourced and unsourced statements then a stub will remain. Andries 15:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Andries, please, take a stress pill! It's not like there are thousands of reputable sources that editors have ignored. Sai has not been a subject of rigorous academic study. The sources referenced by the article are not particularly more or less reputable than other available sources: so far as I can tell, the quality of the referenced sources is about as good as it can be at this moment in time.


 * ''Clearly the lack academically acceptable sources is going to hamper this article from achieving Biography A-class or GA or FA status. We can only hope to make it as good as possible under the circumstances.


 * ''By the way, I appreciate very much your consistent determination as an editor throughout to reduce POV and particularly doubtful sources.--Nemonoman 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * White, Bowen, and Rigopoulos are good sources. I have access to the latter two sources. Andries 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So are Doniger and Srinivas which have been used. Kkrystian 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ''So if you guys have all these sources (some of which appear to be out of print), why not have a go at some inline citations as the assessment suggests??--Nemonoman 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Krystian removes statements sourced to reputable sources from this article I am very tired of it.

removing statement sourced to Bowen that Shirdi sai was eccentric and violent

Andries 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed a Request for comments
Andries 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Kkrystian and User_talk:Andries for a further discussion about this dispute. Andries 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by user:Andries regarding the request for comments
Only very few peer reviewed sources exist about this subject (I think only Bowen, White, and Rigopoulos), so I can not see any good reason to remove statement sourced to one of these sources. This article generally uses poor quality of sources and I think that Krystian's repeated removals of the few statements sourced to reputable sources, such as Bowen are unhelpful for building an encyclopedic article. Andries 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by user:Kkrystian regarding the request for comments
See user talk:Andries.

I have already told him that this fragment is to be about Sai's life not about what different people say about it or Him or His behaviour. Just like I don't include devotee's views I do not see the point in including the POV of one single author. Kkrystian 07:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comments
It appears to me that Kkrystian wants this article to be a hagiography. When it comes to figures like this, it is important to include statements and observations about him from all viewpoints if they're available. It may well be that these are merely opinions -- but then, so are statements by his followers. If the article is to contain any opinions of him, then it must reflect all sides. Given that, I see no reason to remove well-sourced statements here.

Obviously it can be distressing when a respected figure is examined dispassionately and without regard for his position, but that's kind of what NPOV calls for. To include the paeans of his followers but omit outside views (including possibly embittered ex-followers) would be equivalent to writing an article, say, about Paul the Apostle based only on the Bible and Christian tradition, and not later commentary and opinion. Christians don't get to make Paul's article purely hagiographical, and this one cannot be either. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Andries and Kkrystian -- I have to say, can't you two just get along??
 * ''Clearly the reference to Shirdi Sai Baba from a book about the followers of Satya Sai in Bradford...sheesh, how tenuous is the usefulness of that info? Are specific events described? Or is this just a passing comment? Because Sai is commonly held to have been, let's say, rough. Unless specific details are delineated, this opinion about someone who isn't the subject of the book, or even the master of the subject in the book, seems practically as irrelevant as a google-eyed compliment from a Sai website.
 * ''Either let's say -- any referenced comment goes, no matter of origin or reference credibility, OR let's say: zero out to all extent possible POV both positive and negative.--Nemonoman 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A substantial fraction of the cited book deals with Shirdi Sai Baba. Andries 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since you are the one with the book, how about some quotes, rather than your personal summary of the content?--Nemonoman 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC) And while you're at it, perhaps a little background about the author's credentials, and source materials the author used to uncover the information presented about Sai's behavior, etc? Perhaps those source materials represent some neutral ground we can agree on for this article.--Nemonoman 12:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comment RFC by on the User:Csernica I will revert to my preferred version. If this leads to more reverts then I will request meditation as per dispute resolution. Andries 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

good article nomination failed
I have removed the article from the Good Article page. The writing style, grammar, and references needs work. Plus from the talk page it doesnt look stable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaleshwar section seems inappropriate.
The section that states "Swami Kaleshwar publicly worships Sai Baba, and treats him as a great saint and his own guru" (with a direct link to Kaleshwar's site), seems to be an insert for advertisement by Kaleshwar devotees and does not seem proper for the Sai Baba article. Otherwise, one must include how Swami Kaleshwar believes he is in spiritual communion with the deceased spirit of Sai Baba and claims that Sai Baba speaks to him on the spiritual plane. Wiki User  Talk  05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevin R. D. Shepherd link
This link seems highly inappropriate for the Sai Baba article. Kevin R. D. Shepherd is not a well known writer on Shirdi Sai Baba and the link to Shepherd's page quickly desends into personal attacks against Wikipedia and what appears to be a former Wikipedia user. Further research showed that a Wikipedia article for Kevin R. D. Shepherd was deleted and after that incident, Simon Kidd included the Shepherd link on the Sai Baba page. As such, the Shepherd link would seem highly inappropriate due to its attacking content against Wikipedia and Wikipedia users. Wiki User  Talk  05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several points to be made concerning the assertions above:


 * 1. Shepherd has written two books that deal directly with the subject of Shirdi Sai Baba. The earlier of these (Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, 1985) has been cited in a positive context by two academic writers, both of whom appear in the 'Further reading' section of this Wikipedia article. Antonio Rigopoulos described Shepherd's early book as “a ground-breaking work” (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba, p. xxvii); and Marianne Warren declared that “Shepherd was the first author to question this Hindu bias and to redefine the broad ‘Muslim’ category … most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong.” (Unravelling the Enigma, p. 15). Thus I suggest that Shepherd's work on Shirdi Sai Baba is well regarded by academic specialists.


 * 2. It is not true that the online article linked in the 'Further reading' section quickly descends into personal attacks against Wikipedia and a former Wikipedia editor. There are four substantial references to Wikipedia in the article. The first of these expresses Shepherd's opinion that there is an error in the Wikipedia article - nothing more than that. The other three references all occur in the final third portion of the article. All of these concern the former Wikipedia editor abovementioned. The relevance to Shirdi Sai Baba is that the editor concerned objected to inclusion of a reference to Shepherd's later book in the article on Sathya Sai Baba (to whom an appendix of Shepherd's book is devoted). As is well known to followers of SSB, the latter claims to be a reincarnation of the Shirdi saint. The editor in question is notorious among critics of SSB for his many blogs and websites defending the highly controversial guru and attacking his detractors, and was banned from editing the article on SSB due to his aggressive editing style. In conclusion, there are no attacks by Shepherd on Wikipedia as such in the article concerned, only an attempt to defend himself against the attacks of a banned editor.


 * 3. Shepherd has elsewhere been critical of Wikipedia policies and procedures, as indeed have many others, some of whom are contributors to the online encyclopedia. There is no Wikipedia policy against that. The right to freedom of expression is upheld in democratic societies. Attempting to disqualify the Shepherd references on such grounds amounts to censorship.


 * 4. The deletion of the Wikipedia article on Shepherd was controversial, and Shepherd has provided his own analysis here. The deletionists based their case on the Wikipedia notability guideline, a highly controversial subject in its own right (see, for example, The Charms of Wikipedia: "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out"). As established wikipedians will know, this whole issue has achieved particular prominence since the Shepherd case in the hugely controversial area of BLP deletion. In any case, the deletion of the Shepherd article is not grounds for the deletion of the Shepherd references in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. It is not necessary for Shepherd to have his own Wikipedia article in order to be cited in another article. Neither Rigopoulos nor Warren, for example, have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.


 * 5. What is most interesting about the assertions by WikiUser is that they are made just one day after creation of this account, raising suspicions of a single-purpose account. This latest attack on Shepherd's credentials is very reminiscent of the 2006 attack by the abovementioned banned editor. In this controversial area, where sectarian interests are so often in evidence, the motives of deletion proponents should be subject to particular scrutiny, in order to guard against disruptive editing. As I have shown above, the grounds for removal of these particular references are, in any case, flimsy on all counts.


 * Simon Kidd (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not objecting to the inclusion of the Shepherd references. I am objecting to the inclusion of the link, which attacks Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. You may accuse me of me being a "single-purpose account", but anyone can make that accusation against someone who just joined Wikipedia. From what I have read, there are principles against original research, and prohibiting the use of Wikipedia for agendas and axe-grinding. It would appear that the inclusion of the link is being used for an axe-grinding agenda against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors you and Shepherd dislike. I plan on removing the link. Wiki  User  Talk  13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you ignore what I have said in my point number 2 above: there is no attack on Wikipedia in the online article you are referring to. Please show directly where this attack takes place. Second, the alleged 'attack' against Wikipedia editors to which you refer actually amounts to a defense against attack from a single former editor, who was banned from editing several years ago due to his aggressive tactics (which have been described in detail by others on the Internet). Third, the article is substantially about Shirdi Sai baba, not Wikipedia or the banned editor. In other words, citing this article does not amount to a 'soapbox' or 'axe grinding'. Fourth, I did not accuse you of being an SPA: I merely expressed suspicion and urged caution given the history of (sectarian) attempts to undermine Shepherd's credentials on Wikipedia. It is true that an SPA accusation can be made against many new editors, and good faith is generally assumed, but it is difficult to assume good faith under the present circumstances. Your boldness about removing this link, as well as your familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, are not characteristic of a new editor, and suspicion remains. Perhaps you could state unequivocally that you are a new editor with no other Wikipedia account. Fifth, you are confused about the policy against original research: Wikipedia articles themselves should not contain original research, but there is no policy against citing other texts containing original research. Quite the opposite in fact: one would expect the cited texts to contain original research. Every single item in the 'Further reading' section contains original research. Sixth, I suggest that the only agenda here is your own, not Shepherd's or mine. He publishes under his own name, and I edit under mine (my credentials are publicly available on my user page). You, on the other hand, are a pseudonymous editor who, within one day of creating your account, singled out the Shepherd link for removal. In conclusion, your claims about the Shepherd article are thoroughly inaccurate and misleading. This is a valuable article about Shirdi Sai Baba, by an author who has been praised by two specialist academics for his first book on the subject. It is one of only two online resources in the 'Further reading' section, and therefore convenient to researchers. You do not have grounds to remove the link: if you do so, I will reinstate it. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue is about a webpage that would initially appear to be about Sai Baba of Shirdi, but ends with irrelevant attacks against Wikipedia, a Wikipedia editor and Sathya Sai Baba. The inclusion of the link seems solicitory in nature and (in my opinion) is not proper for the Sai Baba of Shirdi page. It would also seem you are attempting to give undue weight to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. PhD Marianne Warren stated in her book that she thought Kevin R. D. Shepherd was highly opinionated and said Shepherd's book on Sai Baba of Shirdi had no bibliography . Also, there is no policy that states I must divulge my name or identity. It appears you initially posted under a pseudonym for quite a while as well. You can close your eyes to my other edits and see whatever conspiracy you like. I will await a response for the request for comment. The section you posted the link is intended for books, not personal links to controversial material. Wiki  User  Talk  06:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The title of Shepherd's article is not 'Shirdi Sai Baba' but 'Shirdi Sai baba and the "Sai Baba Movement"' It does not purport to be only about Shirdi Sai Baba, but puts him in a certain context. Therefore, it is not misleading in its intentions.
 * 2. You have ignored my request to show precisely where the attack on Wikipedia is.
 * 3. Sathya Sai Baba is relevant, since he has claimed to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. Shepherd's analysis relates to the 'hinduizing' trend that SSB's claim has reinforced. Therefore, it is very relevant to the discussion of Shirdi Sai Baba.
 * 4. That Shepherd's analysis is relevant is recognized by Warren and Rigopoulos. Warren describes it as a 'new and thought-provoking perception of Sai Baba'. It must be remembered that Warren herself was not neutral, and was in fact a devotee of SSB at the time of the first edition of her book. As Shepherd points out, she later seceded from the movement and repudiated SSB's reincarnation claim. For more on this, see 'Shirdi Sai Baba and Dr. Marianne Warren’s Rejection of Sathya Sai'.
 * 5. You are right that you are not obliged to divulge your identity. This is a well-known problem with Wikipedia, and has serious consequences for the neutrality of its content, especially anything of a controversial nature. You are not obliged to hide it either, by the way. I did begin my editing under another name - that is no secret, and my alternate account use has been registered by ArbCom. The retention of my old account has nothing to do with Kevin Shepherd.
 * 6. The section I posted the link to is called 'Further reading' - it does not specify books.
 * 7. As for my seeing a conspiracy, this is precisely the problem with Wikipedia anonymity. In areas of controversy (eg anything connected with SSB), there is always going to be suspicion of motives. I have moved away from that anonymity by editing under my real name and providing my credentials on my user page. I know nothing about you, other than your very recent appearance and almost immediate attempt to remove a link I added to the Shirdi Sai Baba article. For all I know, you are a devotee of SSB, or a Hindu nationalist, or someone else with an axe to grind. Of course, being one of those is no impediment to your editing, but I believe it would show a good spirit to declare your interests. The issue of the Shepherd link can then be assessed according to its own merits. You have not so far provided a good case for its removal: for example, you have made unsubstantiated claims (that Shepherd attacks Wikipedia in his article), and you have demonstrated confusion over Wikipedia policy (eg original research).
 * Simon Kidd (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon Kidd, I believe your comments and attacks against me are irrational and hateful. As such, I do not wish to engage you in further conversation. I will discuss the issue with others who are not paranoid and who do not have a vested interest in soliciting Kevin R. D. Shepherd on Wikipedia although he is not an academic or a well known author about Sai Baba of Shirdi. Wiki User  Talk  14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish, WikiUserTalk, although I believe you are confusing vigorous debate with personal attack. You now avoid having to address my points by refusing to engage in the debate. I leave it to others to read the above and decide who is being irrational. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

 * ::: On the Sai Baba of Shirdi page, there is a link that goes to a webpage owned by Kevin R. D. Shepherd that attacks Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. There was consensus that the Kevin R. D. Shepherd page be deleted  and there appeared to be several editors who agreed that Kevin R. D. Shepherd's self-publications could not be used as references against various subjects on Wikipedia. Shortly after the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article was deleted, Simon Kidd added the controversial link on the Sai Baba of Shirdi page, which would seem as an attempt to publicize Shepherd's views against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors by using his article about Sai Baba of Shirdi. I think the link is highly inappropriate for the Sai Baba of Shirdi page and I do not object to the inclusion of the Shepherd references without the link.  Wiki  User  Talk  13:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But this information is not about him ? And why should this information be considered as false information? --Templeknight (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Templeknight, the webpage is about Sai Baba of Shirdi. Towards the end of the article, it attacks a former Wikipedia user 'Moreno'. The webpage is placed where books should go and the link gives undue weight to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Simon Kidd is a very vocal proponent of Shepherd and when the Shepherd Wikipedia article was deleted, it would seem Kidd included the Shepherd link as a means of retaliation. The Shepherd link is controversial and brings the Sai Baba of Shirdi page to a low point, in my opinion. Wiki  User  Talk  06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment: at the afd for Shepherd Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, I said that the only possible notability of Shepherd was as an opponent of Sathya Sai Baba, so it is possible that a citation of his work might be appropriate in such a context. The only possible works of his that would be citable, however, would be published works. We certainly cannot link to his website in this context. I am a little dubious about even the published books, because they are self-published. I wouldn't accept it for similar material in a BLP, but the subject of this article is deceased. (Whether the link goes to an attack page is moot, as the web source is unusable as a reference, and most certainly not as an EL.)    DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiUserTalk prematurely terminated this RfC. The process has 30 days, unless consensus is reached beforehand (see here). It has only run for 8 days. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DGG is a wikipedia administrator, impartial and well versed in wikipedia policy to a much greater extent than Kidd or me. Since no one else has definitively given an opinion, DGG's views are enough to conclude the issue. If agreed, I will remove the Rfc as it has not been "terminated" by me yet. The bot simply removes the Rfc after 30 days. By no means must an RFC last 30 days. Wiki  User  Talk  04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Telugu?
I don't see why original name should be in Telugu. Shirdi is in Maharashtra and he would speak in hindustani. So better put शिर्डी साई बाबा in devanagari script Gul-o-Khar (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A word doesn't characterize a language family!
Suggest removing introductory sentence stating "Baba"'s use as an honorific in "Indo-Aryan languages." Language families are not characterized by "use" of a particular word. (And especially not when the etymology of the word in question is from Old Persian!)

Suggest replacing and presenting "Baba" as a concept shared by myriad cultural/spiritual movements, with emphasis on social/ideological role of an archetypal "baba" esp. in South Asian context- this is far more germane than what incredibly-massive-family-of-languages (Indo-Aryan!) may arbitrarily use some word. --Gñāna (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 15:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sai Baba of Shirdi → Shirdi Sai – Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." Though he in his lifetime, he was simply known as Sai Baba and never as plain "Shridi Sai". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – O deus! why don't you understand the policy of COMMONNAME. What's your agenda here, you're tagging articles for move with no good reason. Why Shirdi Sai? when Shirdi is a place and Sai itself is honorific, then you'll name him Shirdi? undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   10:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shri Sai Baba page is being constantly modified to make him look wrongly pro-islam
There is consistent and deliberate effort to change faith of Shri Sai Baba. Even if Hindu references are there on the website, they are mentioned in secondary options and referred after a muslim reference is given. The page has distinctly changed from the year 2002 to make it pro-islamic. This seems to be effort of some sufi saint followers who feel there sufi saint was re-incarnation of Shri Sai Baba or a follower of him. I recommend someone to monitor these consistent effort to sound Shri Sai Baba islamic. There are several wrong mentions that Shri Sai Baba read Quran. There is absolutely no evidence of the same.During the times of Sai Baba, Mughal ruled and created nuisance for Hindus. To keep these mughal crooks at bay, Shri Sai Baba tried to bridge gap between two faiths.Request all Hindu followers to seriously monitor the page content and check the history as to monitor who is doing this consistent changes. Request stringent action for all the false information on this page as it deals with Hindu faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.118.193 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in sources that he recited Quran (one of these sources is Marianne Warren, for example, I think you won't accuse her for being pro-islamic or pro-sufist). Also during the times ofSai Baba, Mughals didn't rule India but the British did. Mughal rule was abolished completely at 1857, a year before Sai Baba returned at Shirdi at 1858 and began his activities. Even before this, Mughals were a dependency of the British and they ruled only in name on the very small territory around Delhi. Your comments show ignorance in both Indian history and Sai Baba's life and are completely biased. There seems to be effort not of some sufi followers, but of some Hindus to cut Sai Baba from his Islamic ties. 77.79.175.117 (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

LOVE YOU SAI BABA BY SHIVANSHU PANDEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.138.207 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sai baba - Hindu deity
This page is constantly being updated to look Sai baba as one of many Hindu deities. There millions and millions of Hindu deities and please do not make Sai Baba as one of them. It has been written that Sai baba was "Avatar" of Dutta. Well there is no such proof for this claim. Even there is no proof whether Dutta was ever existed. Sai baba focused more communal harmony and peaceful society. If you notice his teachings, they not just resemble but in fact they are Sufism. There are many examples like Sai baba where Sufi preachers lived without disclosing anything and all they did is social work. There is nothing wrong in accepting anybody as a God but let's accept with truth rather than changing that God for your convenience.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar skr (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC) om sai ram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.27.11 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The sai baba movement is not Hindu. For some reason all new indian religions are claiming to be hindu including satan dharma that got absorbed into the the then vedic religion. Please stop all this misinformation they have to be separate religions, if these people truly believe into a god then they have already created a hell of millions of gods for themselves and they are influencing indian diaspora and gypsies into their way of life... Please stop indians you are making yourselves so ridiculuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.34.248 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

lkug

Saibaba Early Life
Saibaba never revealed about his birthdate, parents or the place where he was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcky92 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

background of sai baba (not the section)
It has been established, and accepted as a fact that he was born in the town of Pathri. There is a temple as well, Sri Sai Janmasthan Temple, Pathri.

There are claims, and folk tales that he was born in a hindu family. It is also alleged that this information is included in “Shri Sai Satcharitra" written by Govind Raghunath Dabholkar. Could somebody please confirm the information regarding the mentions of his origins in the Charitra? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran (talk ) 20:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * would you please help me with that? —usernamekiran (talk ) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some references in Sri Sai Janmasthan Temple, Pathri confirming his birth place. If you can include them in Shirdi Sai Baba and provide the birthplace as Pathri, all is good. Feel free to ask me if you have any doubts regarding how to insert book references. Also, considering that you live in Pathri, it might be easy for you to procure a copy of the mentioned book. If you can read it and find the page number where the required information is found, it can be included as well. I found this link revealing the ISBN numbers of the book. RoCo (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, i live in parbhani it is the district headquarter for pathre, just 45 km away. That book is easily available like in 50% of India. I will try to procure it. And i will also try to add the details to the sai baba page. Thanks for the suggestion —usernamekiran  (talk ) 20:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Shree Sai Baba Samadhi Mandir Complex, Shirdi
We can create a page on this topic/subject. This temple in shirdi is one of the most visited temples in the world and the third richest temple too. Sanskar RM Khatri (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sai Baba of Shirdi. 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/20100501002144/http://www.saiananta.com/bhivpuri.html to http://www.saiananta.com/bhivpuri.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414023134/http://saibaba.org/saisatc.html to http://www.saibaba.org/saisatc.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shrisaibabasansthan.org/new_eng%20template_shirdi/shirdi/templecomplex.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130222061437/http://www.omsrisai.net/saitemples.php?page=1 to http://www.omsrisai.net/saitemples.php?page=1

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) 18:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018
Religion of Sai Baba is listed as Hinduism while that is with conflict with rest of description on the page itself. Religion should be written as None for Sai Baba as he himself never answered that question clearly. 117.96.224.28 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 06:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seperating facts from devotional interpretations
This article is full of interpretations by devotees while obscuring the few known facts about shird Sai. The interpretations by devotees should go to Shirdi Sai Baba movement though a summary can be left here. The facts are that he was a beggar who was sometimes abusive and even violent. This is well documented. Why can't we write that? Andries (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article to the version of april 2014. A very large part of the information had been deleted. Indeed Andries, the material upto that date stated the facts mentioned by you.This article is getting worse rather than better over the years.--Satrughna (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is one of the most POV laden I have seen on Wikipedia. Needs massive overhauling.119.148.3.14 (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs a great deal of work. The lede alone has a combination of using Wikipedia's voice and presenting excessive details of in-world beliefs that needs to be rewritten. --Ronz (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Some parables too seem to have seeped in without any clear distinction between fact and parable. Article needs clean up. I'll start it, but any help would be most appreciated. Notthebestusername (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Death - section and information needed
The death / Samadhi of Shirdi Sai Baba is conspicuous by its absence in this wiki. I recollect reading about it in the first book about him (rather honestly) by a devotee of his, in Marathi. I think I was reading its English translation (bought at Shirdi) and it was pretty unflattering (by todays standards) and filled mostly with facts. It does describe his death / Samadhi. Can someone please add this section as I don't have the book currently to reference it. Notthebestusername (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Small typo
Hello. Could someone please fix this? "The garden continues to be a palce visited by pilgrims..." Should be "The garden continues to be a place visited by pilgrims..." I'm unable to fix it myself. Thanks. Diegorodriguezv1 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018
I request you to add the following two links to the "External Links" Section: 1) Brief Life History of Shirdi Sai Baba (at hinduismwayoflife.com) 2) Essential teachings of Shirdi Sai Baba (at hinduismwayoflife.com) Cvrajan (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ see WP:LINKSTOAVOID which says such links are not applicable. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Remove the part that says shirdi sai baba is a part of saguna brahman 2604:2D80:4407:8568:683F:2BC8:D757:F4AF (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2019 (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. Roadguy2 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Your request is spam, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID before you're blocked -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 11:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019
142.147.59.129 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC) baba is worshipped by people from any religion who believe in him.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019
The only name of Sai Baba was Sai Baba. He was not known as Chand Miya ever in his lifetime. 24.185.101.178 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sai Baba is famously known as Chand Miyan(former name before his conversion to being Hindu Saint from Pindari Islam caste background). Citations are already being requested for resources.HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (for both requests) — MRD2014 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

His name and religion
His name was Chand Miyan and he doesn't belong to Hinduism, how you have written Hinduism. He was betrayer and cheater. He used to eat pork and beef, he used to drink wine, he used to abuse ladies who come to him. He used to live in mosque. How you claim him to be Hindu religious. His quotation was Allah Malik. He was mlechcha. Please edit it or let me edit this page. Rgovindm (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the infobox as it was set to state he was a Hindu. The body of the article doesn't make that claim. Read the article. He obviously wasn't Mleccha either, if that's what you mean. Doug Weller  talk 15:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sai baba was a Hindu by birth. But he was handed over to a muslim fakir by his parents ehen he was young. Hence he is worshipped by both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus because he was one by birth and Muslims because he was brought up as one. He has himself said, " Sab ka malik ek" or "God is one". Let anyone worship their chosen deity. Let us not create religious discrimination. BRAINLY456 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of the name but have only put forth the info regarding his religion. BRAINLY456 (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sai Baba’s original name is Haribhau Bhusari and his pet name was Babu. His mother name was Devagiriamma and Fathers name was Gangabhavadhya. He was the last of 5 children. He was the deciple of Rishi Venkusha. Sathyasaibhakta (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Birth place controversey
A controversey was recently triggered by an announcement by the Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray that Pathri village (in Parbhani) was Sai Baba’s birthplace and a grant of Rs. 100 Crore would be awarded to develop Pathri. . This was bitterly opposed by Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust who state that the claim is not historically substantiated. The author of Shirdi Gazetteeer Pramod Aher has stated that 8-10 different claims exist regarding Sai baba's birthplace, none of them pass the historicity scrutiny. Shirdi residents called for an indefinite bandh over the claim, which was later called off.

The claim that Sai Baba was born in Pathri as Haribhau Bhusari was made by Vishvas B. Kher and published in a book "Sai Baba of Shirdi: A Unique Saint" (1991) with M. V. Kamath. In the eighth edition of Sai Satcharitra published by Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, the claim was inserted, but was removed in later editions. The current Trust alleges that during 1984-89, Sitaram Dhanu and Vishvas Kher, both residents of Pathri, had caused the mention of Pathri inserted in the Sai Satcharitra, which was not present in the earlier editions. Vishvas B. Kher's claim the source when Pathri is claimed to be Sai Baba's birthplace. The theory that he ws born as Haribhau Bhusari in a Brahmin family, was originally claimed by V.B. Kher in 1975.

Sai Satcharitra, the only authoritative account by Dabholkar states:

"Nobody knew the parents, birth or birth-place of Sai Baba. Many inquiries were made, many questions were put to Baba and others regarding these items, but no satisfactory answer or information has yet been obtained. Practically we know nothing about these matters." ( I have the Marathi text, unfortunately it is not in standard unicode.)

Malaiya (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Farhan Wilayat (Philanthropist) at Sai Baba's Mandir in Karachi, Pakistan.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
The daily pooja is not being performed in a pious manner. The priests or pujaris are not performing the pooja properly.on the platform near Samadhi they chit chat, discuss,laugh,&shout loudly Their feet touching Samadhi & main idol. They don't attend to parayan immediately after Aarthi.wait for some body to bring the books, They always Hide something behind main idol and search for them. Even Kireetam is being handled by a single hand. Flowers are thrown on Samadhi instead of placing them. They should be trained to place the net in the nights. The two shawls to be placed in the night after Aarthi on the Baba,s feet&on the Samadhi feet are being hold in the armpit. The back doors are always open creating disturbing to poojas.. These are few noticed during the lockdown period which needs to be corrected. 2409:4070:410C:CFE9:0:0:132A:48AC (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. No edit requested; also appears like your own opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020
Reidgpierce1981 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC) change "the God" to simply "God"
 * ✅ in lead. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 11:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-reverting. I don't quite know what to do with the "and guru" behind it. Reopening request for someone that knows. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 12:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: ~ Amkgp  💬  18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)