Talk:Rama Raksha Stotra

Rename the article

Ram Raksha Stotra is incorrect transliteration. रामरक्षास्तोत्र indead is Ram Rakshta Stotra in hindi, due to the schwa syncope. However, the stotra itself is in sanskrit. Thus, hindi transliteration must me replaced with the correct sanskrit transliteration, which is Rama raksha stotra. --80.250.56.174 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madame...the transliterations of verse 32 and 33 are incorrect. They need to be changed.

Verse 32: Raghu vansha means Raghu lineage.

Verse 33: Vaanara means non-human (or non homo sapien) specie. It is incorrectly translated as monkeys (for which sanskrit language has a word Markat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:2B8A:C400:449D:543F:91C8:F4A1 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of main text

The main text of this hymn was removed here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rama_Raksha_Stotra&oldid=1191843398 without any consensus.

I tried to revert it but was advised to get consensus.

so Here is my argument. The main text has existed for over 5 years on this page. The second argument I saw for its removal is WP:NOFULLTEXT here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rama_Raksha_Stotra&oldid=1192484977

Now the question is why is this selectively being applied to this article?

I present to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_89 , Psalm 89 a 52 verse hymn from the Bible where the NOFULLTEXT rule is not applied as it makes the article meaningful. The same case applies here. If you are removing the text, it makes the wikipedia encyclopedia less useful. Therefore I would argue for reinstatement of text to make it accessible to wikipedia users regardless of faith or creed. Holmart (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a normal wikipedia user and I am appalled on why the full text was removed by the user @Kashmiri repeatedly. This amounts to destructive edits and should be restored immediately. Further @Kashmiri should be immediately banned for the destructive edits and vandalism. Veganmeme (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not a "normal Wikipedia user". — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri @Holmart I created an account just to add my views as it is not possible to do that without it.

@Kashmiri I would suggest that you keep your biases to yourself. It is evident from the history of edits of how hard you tried to remove the full text for no rightful reason. The page is now protected because of your repeated vandalism. Veganmeme (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert version request and discussion

(Copied from User talk:RegentsPark)

Hello,

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Raksha_Stotra was unnecessarily truncated. It was not like a 1000 page article. I see extended block was applied till 29 Mar. While I agree with that because of "Persistent disruptive editing". Don't you think that the block should have been applied on the version before the "Persistent disruptive editing" started. Can you please restore it to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rama_Raksha_Stotra&oldid=1190266052 This version was an almost steady version till that point.

If not, atleast add the following link as a reference for those who want to see the entire hymn. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ram_Raksha_Stotra

Cheers!! ShekonTekon (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShekonTekon: If there is consensus to revert to the version you point to, then no worries, but I need to see that consensus. Copying the discussion here so that other editors can comment. RegentsPark (comment) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original page should be restored as many youngesters of Hindu community use Wikipedia as primary source to know more about their scriptures, I myself have used the original article many times. Removing the full text would certainly affect the usability of this page. As the full

ext was on the Wikipedia for many years without any debate it must be restored. Vedantjoshi43 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree with you @Vedantjoshi43. I use it as a reference myself. The full version should be restored. ShekonTekon (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose restoring that version since (1) it would violate WP:NOTFULLTEXT, (2) very likely, it would violate copyright of the English translation, and (3) it would be WP:UNDUE, since this is English Wikipedia and a very long text in foreign script would be unhelpful to an average reader to say the least. Wikisource exists for a reason, and already contains the said text[1]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri if one is not interested in an article, would it make more sense to skip it or skim it. So the question of not being helpful to an "average" reader does not arise.

Speaking about the readers who ARE interested, it is actually very important that the full text and it's transliteration stay in the English Wikipedia. There are practically millions of Hindus who cannot read and/or write and/or understand Sanskrit. And they are the ones who need the translation AND the transliteration the MOST.

Secondly if a native English speaker wants to know about this topic, are they expected to learn Sanskrit first? ShekonTekon (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShekonTekon, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People who'd like to read full text of literary works are welcome to head to Wikisource. Wikisource also has an option of language versions. Also, there're plenty of other websites that host full text of Rama Raksha Stotra with translations, I'm sure people will be able to find them easily. We can also add links to them at the bottom. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri in the same article it mentions that it allows for Democratization of knowledge. Your actions are not aligned to it and preventing users from creating an understanding of the texts. You have not addressed my points about the need for need the translation AND the transliteration. ShekonTekon (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RegentsPark, it seems @Kashmiri objective is met, having this article blocked. He/she is no longer interested in debating the points that I raised. While Lot of Hindus who cannot read Sanskrit, let alone understand it, they are deprived away from accessing it. This behavior will force communities to create their own Wikipedia. ShekonTekon (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShekonTekon Please stop pinging me. I don't intend to engage in any further discussion about the matter with you. Enough of my time wasted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the original version by

@Holmart:, since it seems to follow

WP:TECHNICAL by making each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers, it has a

helpful style in explaining the content in a similar style of Bhaktamara Stotra by translating while showing the original text (as opposed to Uvasagharam Stotra).

The longer English Psalms on Wikipedia tend to show the full text (Psalm 89 with the full 52 verses, Psalm 78 with 72 verses, Psalm 18 with 50 verses) so length of text doesn't seem as big of an issue with religious hymns or prayers with regard to WP:NOTFULLTEXT. And most importantly, at least in my eyes, WP:COMMON says Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. While from an essay, WP:ADHERENCE which points to said essay, is policy and states Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; rules have occasional exceptions. While the NOTFULLTEXT guideline is helpful in some cases, it does not state what length of text is considered "too long", so it is up to the editor to use judgement. As long as the text is not taken from a copyrighted source and is translated by a native language speaker, I see no issues. Since the prior version had the original Sanskrit and English translation on the same line, I personally found it helpful.

One thing I would suggest, if @RegentsPark: is willing, would be to restore to the prior WP:STATUSQUO version pending consensus if it was in fact stable for several years prior, which it seems like until December 26 of last year with [[2]] this edit, it was.

As an outsider looking in who ran across the article, it seems that would be the most neutral thing since as it stands now it's limited due to persistent disruptive editing, with one of the users who was also engaged in what seemed to be an edit war being able to edit the version they preferred. That seems somewhat unfair to the other user.

Awshort (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: It seems to me that the cited source is only for the text in (Sanskrit?). If there is general consensus, I can remove the translation, which appears to be unsourced. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RegentsPark, short Sanskrit poems and verses on en-wiki usually carry English translation. Unless the translation is a copyvio, then it can normally stay per WP:TRANSCRIPTION. Here, I essentially translated the Sanskrit original anew, and I'm ok with keeping my translation in. But thanks for asking anyway :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then there is nothing much to do here. If someone wants to challenge the veracity of the translation then that's a content issue that should be discussed separately on the talk page. RegentsPark (comment) 16:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Also @Awshort, ShekonTekon, and Holmart:RegentsPark (comment) 02:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]