Talk:Bhaktivinoda Thakur

Untitled

This article is opinionated, inflamatory and biased. It is more about lifting up Bhaktisiddhanta and minimizing Lalita Prasad than it is about Bhaktivinoda. Many of its statements cannot be verified and do not come from reliable printed sources. In what recognized, non-sectarian publication has this been published? It seems to go against the policies of Wikipedia. I was certainly offended last night when I did a Google search on "Lalita Prasad Thakur" and found this article. He is my guru and gave me personal instruction on the relationships between himself, his brother and his father. If I were to give my views on the matter, they may be considered to be as biased as those of the author who appears to be a follower of Bhaktisiddhanta. Therefore, rather than further increase the division between the followers of these two brothers, I will edit the objectionable material out and not add my own views. Subal Das 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the final paragraph describing his final days based on information found in Hindu Encounter With Modernity by Shukavak N. Dasa, SRI, copyright 1999 Sanskrit Religions Institute. This is the only scholarly biography of Bhaktivinode. Others are hagiographies or attempts to fit him into sectarian views. Subal Das 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "raganuga-worship"?

It is an extremely bad idea to introduce strange terms that are not explained. The term should be either paraphrased or explained.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bhajan in infobox

Redtigerxyz, you have removed the media file from Bhaktivinoda Thakur's infobox saying "there is no need" for it there. It appears to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the infobox is meant to show the most importan contributions the subject is known for. Since one of the most important contributions Bhaktivinoda is known for to this day and in masses, especially in Bengal, is his numerous and very popular bhajans, it is relevant to give a sample of one in the infobox. So please forgive my reverting your edit. If you still feel that the bhajan is out of place in the infobox, let's discuss it here and reach consensus first before removing it. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• The audio file is already included in the "Major works" section as a sample of the bhajan.
• "Literary works" already covers his major works.
• The bhajan should be included if it is his best known work; but there are several bhajans, why single out this bhajan?
• The bhajan is not sung by him. The words are his, not the music or the tune. A ideal sample of a bhajan would be an extract of his lyrics with meaning in "Major works". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replies, Redtugerxyz. My thoughts on them, pointwise:

• The audio file is already included in the "Major works" section as a sample of the bhajan.

True, but, per H:IB, the infobox is actually supposed to include content that is "[a]lready cited elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article". They are also meant, per WP:IBX, " to summarize key facts that appear in the article". The fact that the audio file is included in the article does not make it out of place in the infobox, just as the fact that his place of birth and literary works are cited in the article does not exclude them from the infobox either. However, I agree that the bhajan section is not developed enough the article yet, and that will hopefully be addressed soon.

• "Literary works" already covers his major works.

Yes, but bhajans are a field entirely different from his literary work, in which Bhaktivinoda made a major contribution, as mentioned in the article: "Bhaktivinoda also contributed significantly to the development of Vaisnava music and song in the 19th century.[144]" Actually, bhajans merit a separate subsection, and I will work on it.

• The bhajan should be included if it is his best known work; but there are several bhajans, why single out this bhajan?

This is a good point. In brief, because: (a) this is the only bhajan of Bhaktivinoda that I managed to get released into the public domain from its copyright holder, the BBT – and I've been back and forth with their Permissions department for a week; (b) it is of high audio quality; (c) the singer as his follower and a Bengali is perhaps more familiar with its traditional style and performance than any Western singer; and (d) arguably, Bhaktivinoda's bhajans, both in printed and audio format, as well as in terms of "users", gained global notability and spread via ISKCON because of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. So, by far, Bhaktivinoda's bhajans sung by Bhaktivedanta Swami are the most globally notable samples of them. However, if you or other editors will have audio files of similar global notability, quality, and free license, I will be more than happy to see them added to the article.

• The bhajan is not sung by him. The words are his, not the music or the tune. A ideal sample of a bhajan would be an extract of his lyrics with meaning in "Major works".

There is no audio recording of this bhajan, or any other bhajan, or anything, by Bhaktivinoda. But, as above, the singer as his follower and a Bengali is perhaps more familiar with its traditional style and performance than any Western singer. Your point about lyrics with meaning in "Major works", however, is excellent and just reinforces the fact that bhajain need a separate subsection, ideally with a few media files of various performers, incluing a folk performance recorded live.

Thank you again for your thoughtful points. It's always a pleasure to co-edit with you. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External link edit war

Mourinho01, can you please explain why this website is suitable for inclusion, bearing in mind the information at WP:ELNO. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, i have read all the points mentioned at WP:ELNO, and this link does not violate any of the clauses - neither does the artcle contain anything inappropriate/unverified, nor does it contain any malware (remember it uses an https), neither is it a social networking site, etc. On the other hand it enriches the wikipedia page of BVT by citing his childhood pastimes, the details of his job postings, and most importantly by citing the exalted status of his residences in navadvipa (svananda sukhada kunja and surabhui kunja). References from Gitamala and Sharanagati (books written by BVT) enrich all these citations. I can only see the readers getting benefitted by learning more about our dear acharya if they click on this external link.

Infact i do not understand why you are removing this link so many times when anyone can see its genuine content. This is actually damaging for the wikipedia community .May be this ends up promoting only certain website links and denying the others which is completely against the community guidelines. This is all i had to comment. Thanks - Mourinho01

It looks like WP:FANSITE to me. I may be wrong and I note that someone else who removed it - Clean Copy - gave a different reason for doing so. Let's see what other people think. Please also note that I said if it is ok to use then really we should be citing it. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush; the website is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia, but rather seeks to glorify its subject. WP:FANSITE is a better characterization for this than my original one. Clean Copy^talk 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think both of you not in a position to judge the subject matter or the edit in question. The external link provides more information which is the prime reason why someone will search in wikipedia for the concerned personality. All that has been mentioned in the link are verified by responsible sources , including the books written by Bhaktivinoda thakura himself. So Sitush & Clean Copy, you have given different reasons to undo this edit at different point in time- sometimes calling it spam, sometimes calling it a work by a duplicate user, etc...But i simply think, you have no genuine reason (which you can justify) to remove this external link. This is the reason why you cannot give a consistent reason for the same.

I support Mourinho01 on this. I visited the external link and i found it very informative. Thanks - Klopp01 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Mourinho01, there can be multiple reasons why something is undesirable. Regarding Klopp01, please read WP:SOCK - this is that account's first contribution. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock indefinitely blocked; Mourinho01 has 72 hours to mull it over. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)