Talk:Namdev

Namdev was not Hindu

Namdev said in his writing that he is not Hindu, The tag of Hindu philosophy should not be put under his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.228 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I removed some content here because it looked like a copyright violation. I've now got the article that was referred to and it is clear that there was no violation. However, the contributor has significantly misrepresented the source, eg: saying that Namdev spent three days in Bassi Pathander when the source says "According to many Punjabis, Namdev spent three days in Bassi Pathana" - the "according to" is very significant when dealing with controversial topics and, indeed, the entire premise of the source is that this topic is controversial. I'll put the source away for a bit, then re-read it and try to incorporate the information in a more neutral manner. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sant Namdev the first Reporter and Writer in the Varkari Cult

As Sant Namdev contributed to the Bhakti Movement and most of his ABHANGA's or petry anded to the holy GURUGRANTHSAHIB , he is the only person who has written down the autobiography of Sant Dnyaneshwar and his sibblings and because of this contribution we get to know the life of these Saints....

This litrature contains in NAMDEV GATHA.. where there are chapters like SAMADHI PRAKARAN, TIRTHAWALI... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapniladitya (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the article

@Sitush:: Thanks for challenging my edits to the lead, and concurring with my tag to one of the claims in the lead. The lead should indeed be supported by the content in the main article.

This wiki article is, unlike several Bhakti sant-poet articles, in a better shape. I have diligently read the sources mentioned, over the last week, and unusually, most of the text is supported and not a copyvio. Someone or some past editors put some effort into it, and whoever you are: well done!

There are a number of ways in which this article can be further improved: [1] It heavily uses Novetzke. It is a reliable, good source. But adding summary from other recent scholarly publications with other perspectives will make the article more balanced and a better information resource. In the case of Novetzke, the article summarizes select parts of it. We should add a summary from other chapters such as chapter 4, on authenticity and anamnetic authorship with respect to Namdev (expanding the authenticity note from McGregor already in the article). [2] We should add a summary from Callewaert's scholarly publications on Namdev's bhajan/music and why the genre of Namdev's literary work is more than poetry. [3] We should add a note, for NPOV, with reliable sources, that there is uncertainty and scholarly disagreement on whether Namdev in Sikh literature was the Namdev from Maharashtra. [4] Some summary sentences present one of the several theories Novetzke discusses, for NPOV we shouldn't pick one because Novetzke doesn't pick or conclude one as final. [5] Add a section summarizing Namdev's philosophy, and the scholarly discussion on whether Namdev was monotheistic or pantheistic, Nirguna or Saguna thinker, etc, from sources such as McGregor, Novetzke, and others. [6] A legacy section describing his impact. @Sitush/others: do you want to do this, or too busy with other matters? I can help while my memory is fresh and I have the sources handy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz:, @Joshua Jonathan: I see you two have edited this article within the last 12 months. Any suggestions, comments? Do you have time to work on this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted you again: you were meddling with stuff that I wrote and I stand by it. Tagging it as not being in the source was ludicrous:

S. B. Kulkarni, noting that Jnandev is not mentioned in the bakhar and finding it improbable that someone could have accomplished two such extensive journeys before the age of seventeen, concludes that Namdev's dates must be much earlier than those usually given. He suggests the dates 1207 - 1287 CE, thus allowing for the scenario portrayed in the bakhar

That you think that my writing of "more likely" in the article, which you tagged does, not reflect this quote from the source is more than disappointing - it raises some serious concerns in my mind. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I somehow missed that. Thanks for clarifying. What are your thoughts about my other comments? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This really isn't my favoured topic area. I cleaned up what was a really messy article and I sourced such things as I could without having to start a whole new section in my library etc. I can help out but I don't have the depth of subject knowledge to know that the outcome is a well-rounded article. The others whom you pinged are more capable of providing useful responses. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Thanks. I just noticed @Redtigerxyz is semi-retired, and @Ogress is active too on this article. Same questions as those to @Joshua Jonathan, to you @Ogress. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz is very good on this sort of subject but comes and goes, rather as I do but perhaps more often. Aside from real life things, the constant disputes relating to Indic articles can be depressing and we all need a break from time to time. I'm not sure if you pinged Ogress properly, so I have done it now. If you get no further, after giving it a week or so, then you'll either have to be bold or you post some sort of neutral message at WT:INB and/or any other relevant projects (Hinduism?). The article has long been on my watchlist and I'll comment etc when I can. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I too am no expert in Hinduism; i'm one of those śrāmaṇa-focused folks. I mostly clean Hinduism articles as much as I can bear before I turn from perfect cinnamon bun into trash can. I just recently cleaned the page because it wasn't visibly in too-bad shape on the surface once I scrubbed it of ad-hoc broken English and hagiographical details. I would flag WP:Hinduism for certain. I think the proposals seem reasonable, but I really don't know that I know enough to comment. I've read zero (0) on Namdev and very little on modern Hinduism. Ogress _smash! 00:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Trash-can.... yes. Depressing: yes. Some folks believe that India is some sort of spiritual paradise; wonder why? Anyway, I'm off to my next week of holiday today, so I also don't have the time to go into this topic. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed, enjoy, cheer up, but keep an eye on this article when you return from your vacation. The entire world, including India, is a spiritual paradise – that is what a compassionate reading of the some literary works of Namdev types and ancient/medieval Indians suggests. @Sitush/others: I will add a few sections, over the coming days/weeks, along the lines of suggestions above, but would appreciate a critical eye. Feel free to revise, restate, reformat, revert or add to as and where appropriate, anything I add. The sfn, sfnp makes me nervous – I hope I don't mix up between the several publications on Namdev each by McGregor, Callewaert, Novetzke, etc. on my desk. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs improvement. Articles of other sants related to Varkari movement also needs improvement, for example Eknath. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio ?

To Namdev, mechanical rituals are futile, pilgrimage to holy places is pointless, deep meditation and loving mutual devotion is what matters looks like it might be a close paraphrase, if not an outright copyright violation, of the cited source. Please can someone check. - Sitush (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We also seem to be gaining an awful lot of short quotations. WP:QUOTEFARM applies here, as elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will check later if book exists online. There is not only possibility of copyvivo issues but also selective picking of some text and ignoring some. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  05:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Rechecked. I don't see copyvio or even a close paraphrase of any particular sentence of the source. Which specific sentence of the source is troubling you? On your quote farming concerns, we must balance that concern with the purpose of the WP:PLAG guidelines, which states, "add in-text attribution when you closely paraphrase another author's words or flow of thought." I am trying my best to satisfy WP:Copyvio, WP:Plag and WP:Quotefarm, as well as not change the meaning or do WP:OR while re-summarizing in one's own words. Your help and collaborative revisions to improve anything I add, is most welcome.

@Human3015: Please AGF and don't cast aspersions. If you have concerns about selective picking of some text, please identify which, and the text with source which was left out or missed. We can then work to build a better version. You have had a tussle with @JJ and I in another article too, few days ago. Lets work together, collaborate with specific suggestions, not make vague allegations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: First you should done with this article then I will review/recheck this article. I had your experience on Tukaram. Currently article Tukaram shows Jnaneshwar, Eknath, Kabir, Namdev as mentors of Tukaram, that is just because of my recheck, otherwise you just wrote Jnandev is mentor of TUKARAM, you forgot rest of 3 when same source was highlighting them as mentors/Gurus of Tukaram. And I never had any kind of "tussle" with JJ. He is very sensible and trustable editor. Moreover, I also have trust in my ability to find out hidden agenda of any editor regarding pushing POV in favour of his/her nation, religion, caste, race etc. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: When you make specific suggestions, such as with Eknath, Kabir etc list addition, they help. I believe @JJ and I accepted your suggestion and it is in the article. But I will recheck to be sure. BTW, thanks for inviting me to edit the Eknath article, but I encourage you to work on Eknath article on your own, it was indeed in poor shape when I checked yesterday. I will join and help you in future, if and when I am able to. Along with this Namdev article, the Eknath and other articles are indeed important Bhakti-related wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For a focussed discussion to help improve this article, I am breaking the three concerns/suggestions so far mentioned. I welcome specifics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

copyvio check

@Sitush wrote:

"To Namdev, mechanical rituals are futile, pilgrimage to holy places is pointless, deep meditation and loving mutual devotion is what matters" looks like it might be a close paraphrase, if not an outright copyright violation, of the cited source. Please can someone check. - Sitush (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Can @Sitush or someone identify the page number and source where the alleged copyvio or 'close paraphrase' is allegedly from? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

quotefarm concern

@Sitush mentions the essay on WP:QUOTEFARM, and its applicability to this article. Extracting...

The guideline in that essay: "Quotations are a good tool to comply with the no original research policy but must be used with care. Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Overuse happens when a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere. Quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased. - from WP:QUOTEFARM

I believe "attributing with reliable source, explaining relevance, and paraphrase" is what I have done in this article, to the best of my ability. I am trying my best to satisfy WP:Copyvio, WP:Plag and WP:Quotefarm, as well as not change the meaning or do WP:OR while re-summarizing in one's own words. If a specific paragraph can be improved to better meet WP:Quotefarm concerns, please identify which, and suggest ways to improve it. Your help is most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

POV and @Human3015

Sarah, no one is ignoring your contribution, at least you are looking for these articles, otherwise these articles were in bad shape since ages. I just have concern that you should not ignore some text in source. It is obvious that everyone do have his/her POV, I can't claim that I'm very neutral editor neither you. We just have to improve ourself as Wikipedia editor and try to be "more neutral" if not "complete neutral". I'm not discouraging you. I want you to improve Varakari related articles because you have special interest in it. Me too have interest in it, but currently I'm working on Tourism related Projects. I'm also planning to make template on Varkari topics because as per my knowledge there is no such template, we can include all Varkari related articles in one template which will help us to improve those topics. Best regards. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I have read your lecture, and feel you have good intentions. You write, "I just have concern that you should not ignore some text in source." Have I done so in this article? Please identify the page number(s), source and the ignored text that you have in mind for this article? Casting aspersions without "specifics and revision diffs" falls under WP:AVOIDYOU, and ill-considered accusations of impropriety without evidence is WP:IUC. So, give me specifics for this article, and let us collaborate to help improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wp:Overcite and Wp:Citevar

@Sitush: I noticed your edit summaries referring to these. That makes sense. I just hope, in cases where you removed the cite because the same cite is at the end of the para, people don't tag sentences with 'cite needed' and delete the tagged sentence in future. Particularly, after someone inserts sentences inside that paragraph from a different reliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

संत नामदेव

संत नामदेव ग्रंथ 2409:4042:D19:5FD0:A0B:3C9D:6683:EB5F (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Caste issue

Here is mentioned that Namdev(darji) are sudhra but I'm showing dissatisfaction because sudhra are those who are untouchable, namdev are not untouchable. This is my kindly request to you that remove the title of sudhra from the darji caste written in your page. 103.81.152.195 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

According to Mahipati, a hagiographer of the 18th century, Namdev's parents were Damashet and Gonai, a childless elderly couple whose prayers for parenthood were answered and involved him being found floating down a river. As with various other details of his life, elements such as this may have been invented to sidestep issues that might have caused controversy. In this instance, the potential controversy was that of caste or, more specifically, his position in the Hindu varna system of ritual ranking. He was born into what is generally recognised as a Vaishyacaste, variously recorded as shimpi in the Marathi language and as Chhipa, Chhimpa, Chhimba, chimpi (calico-printer) in northern India. His followers in Maharashtra and northern India who are from those communities prefer to consider their place, and thus his, as Kshatriya(Precisely as Rajputs and Marathas) Anmolrajput0 (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Death reason

Qq 183.87.125.199 (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)