Talk:Jyotir Math

Jyotir Math was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 8, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

India: Uttarakhand Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hinduism: Shaivism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Shaivism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jyotir Math/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I will take up the review.Ssriram mt (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article does not mention the traditions, religious practices or anything other than the leadership.
The leadership topics also do not give the qualification points like life-long celibacy, education etc.
The references and the quality of references are also that good(some are vernacular), while there are quite some references in google results.
It is a Hindu monastic institution - leaving the category, there is no mention anywhere.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead and other contents need expansion.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are quite some references that lack basic parameters like publisher, first, last names and accessdate. Also quality of references can be better.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Goes with 2a above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Too much is given into leadership alone.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Can't assess this as it talks just about leadership.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image alt needs to be added and a detailed description.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article lacks content. Since there are lot of comments that would need time to fix, i am failing it for now. Please fix the same and subject it to GAN later. Also, it would be better to check the guidelines in WP:GA before renominating it.

As I have said elsewhere, this article is full of bias that Wikipedia refuses to deal with. As someone who practices TM, I've been asked to refrain from ANYTHING having to deal with ANYTHING having to do with TM, the Shankaracharya succession wars at Jyotirmath, or anything else, and yet, "partisans" with other POVs are allowed to manipulate this article as they see fit by posting falsehoods and half-truths in strategic locations in the article designed to be quoted worldwide.

Currently, the google question "Who is the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath" is answered worldwide by paraphrasing one sentence of this wiki entry in order to say that the guy in the picture named as Shanakracharya IS the current Shankarcharya in the caption, even as that has been challenged in court. Sparaig2 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totakacharya or Trotakacharya?

The names Totakacharya and Trotakacharya are both used for the poet-shishya of Adi Shankara in this article and elsewhere. Are both correct and represent the same individual? David Spector (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of "current" Shankaracharya?

Note that the judge who ruled that Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati was NOT the legitimate Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath did so because the person who appointed him was himself NOT the legitimate Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. It makes no sense to assert that the guy appointed by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati as his heir is the legitimate new Shankaracharya given that reasoning. Sparaig2 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Referring to my comment, shouldn't this be arbitrated?

--Sparaig2 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're asking. Shouldn't what be arbitrated?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the guy who was appointed by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati is now the Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath just because SSS appointed him makes no sense because the judge ruled that SSS was not really the Shankaracharya because the guy who appointed HIM was not really the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath in the first place.

Unless that has been adjudicated in court, and it isn't mentioned that it has been, there is STILL no Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and hasn't been since the original ruling. Sparaig2 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not settle content disputes. You may use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THing is, because of the history of all pages related to TM, they've pretty much banned anyone who practices TM from editing pages, so my impression is that ONLY people who don't do TM are allowed to edit related pages.

And of course, their partisanship isn't an issue at all <snort>. I mean, its not like every issue raised by Cocchrane Review contributors concerning TM research and researchers wasn't also targeted to mindfulness researchers. The fact that they explicitly said "researchers on TM and otehr meditaiton practice [are terribly biased]" does't mean that mindfulness research and researchers are terribly biased, and so mindfulness research gets its own page, while the page for TM research was removed. This has had huge consequences throughout the topic. E.G., the TM organization published 5 papers on the physiological correlates of what THEY consider to be samadhi from 1982 to 2002, but because they can't be cited on the TM page, the editors of the samadhi topic justify that as reason not to include them in the samadhi topic pages., while one or two studies from 80-90 years ago ARE cited on the samadhi page. See my point about so-called "dispute resolution?" Sparaig2 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure how to do "dispute resolution" about who is or isn't Shankaracharya

{{admin help}}

While it is acknowledged that there is no consensus about the existence of a new Shankaracharya in one section, the other sections still assert that the guy appointed by the man who was appointed the new Shankaracharya by the man who was removed by the courts for not being Shankaracharya IS the Shankaracharya.

How can we have a cordial dispute when this kind of blatantly partisan, inconsistent logic is applied to different sections?

In fact, I see no discussion of any kind between editors in this current page. Sparaig2 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]