Jump to content

Talk:Rambhadracharya/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Title?

What should the title be? Avenue X at Cicero moved it to Rambhadracharya. However, we do find that we have articles like Swami Vivekananda, where Swami is also a Title. Actually Acharya is also a title and there is no consistency e.g. see Ramanuja but Vallabhacharya. So, should the page be under Rambhadracharya, Swami Rambadracharya (name used by English media), or Jagadguru Rambdharacharya (name used in official site and university)? Nmisra (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The move should had been discussed on the talk page, i am moving it to previous title. If editors choose any other title, i will move it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer Jagadguru Rambhadracharya as the title. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Vibhijain, lets resolve this here before moving since it is a GA nominee. There is mixed usage being followed, e.g. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (four honorifics), Muktananda (none), Sivananda Saraswati (Dashanami name) and Swaminarayan (none )(the last being a good article). Most of the articles begin with the complete name including title. Nmisra (talk) 13:00, 28 August 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 moved - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Requested move/dated|Rambhadracharya}}

Jagadguru Rambhadracharya → Rambhadracharya – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) First up, Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Also, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya generates 133,000 results and Rambhadracharya generates 316,000 results. Above all, Rambhadracharya, in his official website, writes his name as Rambhadracharya with Jagadguru just as something small that someone would put before his name like "Mr." or "Sir". Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A GA review is initiated - Talk:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya/GA1. If this article is moved, please move the review page as well so that the GA links are not affected. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Even the English prison service uses Her Majesty's Prison Service. That doesn't mean we move Elizabeth II to "Her Majesty the Queen. Elizabeth II." Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As said by mike on the talk page of Swami Vivekanand, WP:HONORIFIC can make exceptions. I think Jagadguru Rambhadracharya finds overwhelming use in sources. I recall a recent discussion at Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Michael changed his stance there. What do you say now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The applicable guideline is for Indic titles and honorifics says that exceptions are allowed for people who are widely known by a name or title. Google for Prabhupada shows 2,130,000 results while that for A. C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada shows 483,000 results but the article has the latter title. Given the university name (JRHU), official site URL and the use in third-party biographies (Nagar and Dinkar), I would support Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. Nmisra (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Can anyone report on what the majority of the sources (not official, because they'll obviously use honorifics without exception) use? If there are some sources which use Rambhadracharya, then I'd support the move, deeming it not enough to make an exception to HONORIFIC. Lynch7 13:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Important sources like 7, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 45, 101-106, an award 130, and many more do not use "Jagadguru", and I think we cannot overrule WP:HONORIFIC (I say this at the risk of sounding too lawyer-like, but still.. ) Lynch7 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common practice in Hinduism and India. Let us not try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to redefine existing practices of a billion people. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support name change, suggest Swami Rambhadracharya: Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Times of India (in one instance), The Hindu, Press Trust of India (as in DNA), Government of India (Sahitya Akademi Awards), the Lok Sabha (The Office of Speaker), WebDunia, K. K. Birla Foundation, Navbharat Times, Jagran (in one instance), Mid Day in one instance have used the title Swami instead of Jagadguru, which is a sectarian title and every head of the Ramanandi sect becomes a Jagadguru by default. I would suggest a more neutral "Swami Rambhadracharya", as used by these references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If you do suggest a move, why not only the name. As Swami is an obvious honorific. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:HONORIFIC says: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. eg. Father Damien". Swami is closest to Father in nature as it illustrates the occupation. Hindu prefixes/suffixes like ji, Sri, Pujya, Parampujya are titles that denote honorific respect. Also, the neutral Swami is used by English media as well as other organizations including Government of India. Also, the Ramanandi sect also use it as "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya", where Jagadguru Ramanandacharya is the honorary title denoting his position as a head of the sect. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
To me, Swami or Jagadguru sounds more like POV since it denotes a higher level than others. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the final decision be, the decision should be made as per relevant policy, not on the basis of it sounding POV to you. WP:HONORIFIC does not deal with Indic religious titles, the right policy to use is Indic titles and honorifics. Almost nobody outside ISKCON calls Prabhupada as A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and it may sound POV as well with three honorifics (A.C., Bhaktivedanta and Swami). Nmisra (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer Rambhadracharya (spiritual leader) on the lines of Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), primarily because even Swami is not used almost exclusively (on the lines of Mother Teresa or Swami Vivekananda). Lynch7 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) is titled thus to distinguish him from Ravi Shankar the sitarist who has the same name and precedes him. No such situation here so Spiritual Leader is not required IMHO. Nmisra (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree that it would be an unnecessary dab. Lynch7 11:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Though I prefer Swami Rambhadracharya, I have no opposition to Rambhadracharya (read No support to Rambhadracharya either; Neutral to Rambhadracharya) per se.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My preference in decreasing order is Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, Swami Rambhadracharya and Rambhadracharya. It's only a URL and first line in article can be Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, e.g. Bill Gates is the title and William Henry "Bill" Gates II is how the article begins. Having said that, decision should be in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. Nmisra (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In any case the first line should have the full title. I would prefer the full: "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya." --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the opening sentence, however i think it should be Dharmachakravarti Mahamahopadhyay Shrichitakuttulsipithasvara Mahakavi Prasthanatrayibhashyakar Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that all these titles are used together. The official site just uses

"Jagadguru Rāmānandācārya Svāmī Rāmabhadrācārya" [IAST original]. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Google Results Irrelevant Herethat should be considered

Avenue X at Cicero said Jagadguru Rambhadracharya generates 133,000 results and Rambhadracharya generates 316,000 results. By elementary logic, the result holds true for any two words. Search for word X and word Y separately and each one of them should give more results than when you search for "X Y". In set theory we say, n(A intersection B) <= n(A) and n(A intersection B) <= n(B). Nmisra (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

True. What would could do is search for "Rambhadracharya" excluding "Jagadguru". That would be more meaningful. Lynch7 11:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are only a few book and English news articles, so I did a Google Search in English, as per guidelines under WP:COMMONNAME. Here are the results in decreasing order of hits. As pointed on Talk:Swami Vivekananda In absence of a policy on Indic/Dharmic names and as per below results which are valid criterion as per WP:COMMONNAME, the current name of the article should stay. Nmisra (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Search for Number of results URL
Rambhadracharya with Jagadguru 118,000 Here
Rambhadracharya with Jagadguru, without Swami 115,000 Here
Rambhadracharya with Swami 114,000 Here
Rambhadracharya with Swami, without Jagadguru 51,200 Here
Rambhadracharya without Jagadguru, without Swami 7,670 Here
The reason "Jagadguru Rambhadracharya" is so high is due to two reasons: 1. the wikipedia article is named "Jagadguru Rambhadracharya" and all wiki-mirrors replicate this. 2. The name also appears in institution names founded by him: Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Seva Sangh, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Shikshan Sansthan. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia article and mirrors also have the word "Swami" at several places, which would be excluded by the search "Rambhadracharya+Jagadguru+-Swami" (second row). About the institutes you are correct though. References in Nagar (2002), the most comprehensive work on Rambhadracharya are usually as "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya". Either the current title or "Swami Rambhadracharya" should work, both names are commonly used. Nmisra (talk) 21:31, 31 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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zuggernaut (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 06:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Will review this over the next few weeks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written: Copyedit, MOS fixes and adherence to WP:COPYVIO are required before the article can pass criterion 1
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Needs copyediting for grammar
  • The line starting with "Though Giridhar had acquired knowledge rare for children of his age," fails WP:COPYVIO
  • COPYVIO also applicable for "He has also visited Singapore, Mauritius and England where he delivered several discourses on Hindu religion."
  • The source "Aneja, Mukta; Eyeway Team (2005), "Shri Ram Bhadracharyaji – A Religious Head With A Vision", Abilities Redefined – Forty Life Stories Of Courage And Accomplishment, All India Confederation of the Blind, pp. 66–68, retrieved April 25, 2011" is cited about 17 or 18 times and all instances need to be examined for COPYVIO.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Recommend a copy-edit for several issues, some of which are listed below:
  • Fixes to titles are required per WP:MOS (example: "Loss of Eyesight" should be Loss of eyesight)
  • Some Sanskrit words are italicized, some are not (an example: Payovrata)
  • Rambhadradas's should be changed to Rambhadradas'. Please fix other similar errors.
  • The acronym JRHU is neither linked nor expanded or explained.
  • Several tiny, one, two or three sentence sections can be merged.
  • Are latitude and longitude of Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh really required right in the middle of the article?
  • Section headings starting with a semicolon (example: "; Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Seva Sangh") should be fixed per WP:Mos#Section_headings
2. Verifiable with no original research: Newspapers, books, academic papers and the like should be used as sources instead of the Jagadguru's original recitiation videos, the university website and other websites which do not provide any information about their authors and editorial boards. Some links are defunct and should be replaced.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. All major, non-obvious claims have references
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). Fails WP:Sources in numerous instances, some of which are listed below:
2c. it contains no original research. Fails WP:OR in the following instances:
  • As a result, his numbering convention is the same as that followed by Philip Lutgendorf.[86]
  • I am unable to verify the equation of Shastri, Acharya, Vidyavaridhi and Vachaspati to bachelors, masters, doctoral and D.Litt degrees respectively. I am treating this as original research for now until adequate sources can be produced which state this explicitly.
  • Lakcing a cite, I am going to treat the line "Thereafter he was known as Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya." as WP:OR
3. Broad in its coverage: Passes both 3a and 3b
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Covers the life of the guru from birth to present day with adequate emphasis on the relevant aspects
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Does not diverge too much in to peripheral topics such as the Ramjanmabhoomi controversy
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No neutrality issues
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No content disputes, move request was handled civilly
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Captions and images look alright
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. All captions look good.
7. Overall assessment. I will wait for a month, until October 7, 2011 to allow these issues to be addressed before making a pass/fail assessment. Good luck in getting the issues resolved. All points raised in the GA review have been addressed. The article now passes GA criterion.

The official website of guruji is maintained by Shri Tulsi Peeth Seva Nyas, and 3 people mainly maintains it, if anyone want I can give their names and ids, I will try to get better secondary sources soon. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Progress following GA Review

Thanks Zuggernaut for your valuable GA review of the article. I will work over the following weeks to edit the article in accordance with your suggestions. The below table will help in monitoring the progress and response. Nmisra (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Attribute Reviewer Comments Actions Takes
1a.
  • Needs copyediting for grammar
  • The line starting with "Though Giridhar had acquired knowledge rare for children of his age," fails WP:COPYVIO
  • COPYVIO also applicable for "He has also visited Singapore, Mauritius and England where he delivered several discourses on Hindu religion."
  • The source "Aneja, Mukta; Eyeway Team (2005), "Shri Ram Bhadracharyaji – A Religious Head With A Vision", Abilities Redefined – Forty Life Stories Of Courage And Accomplishment, All India Confederation of the Blind, pp. 66–68, retrieved April 25, 2011" is cited about 17 or 18 times and all instances need to be examined for COPYVIO.
 Edits made
  • Have checked citations from Aneja 2005, and rephrased/reworded where the text was the same as in the reference.
  • Done with a first-cut copy-edit, Diannaa did a comprehensive copy-edit as well.
1b. Recommend a copy-edit for several issues, some of which are listed below:
  • Fixes to titles are required per WP:MOS (example: "Loss of Eyesight" should be Loss of eyesight)
  • Some Sanskrit words are italicized, some are not (an example: Payovrata)
  • Rambhadradas's should be changed to Rambhadradas'. Please fix other similar errors.
  • The acronym JRHU is neither linked nor expanded or explained.
  • Several tiny, one, two or three sentence sections can be merged.
  • Are latitude and longitude of Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh really required right in the middle of the article?
  • Section headings starting with a semicolon (example: "; Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Seva Sangh") should be fixed per WP:Mos#Section_headings
 Edits made
  • Section and sub-section titles fixed, words except the first one are capitalized only in case of proper nouns (Gita, Ramcharitmanas) and Sanskrit words (Diksha)
  • I have tried to make the italics consistent with MOS:Italics - proper nouns, major religious works, quotes in other scripts, words in Marriam-Webster dictionary (Sadhu, Mantra) are no longer italicized. I am unable to make out if all occurences of a word like Katha are to be italicized or only the first one. Anyway I have made my best effort to be consistent with the policy on this, please help in pointing out if I have missed any words or policy guidelines.
  • Tulsidas's -> Tulsidas' and Rambhadradas's -> Rambhadradas' change done.
  • JRHU acronym removed
  • Working on merging sentence
  • Latitude and longitude of Chitrakoot removed
  • Semicolons removed from section headings, but the copy-editor (Diannaa) put them back so I guess they are not an issue.
2b. Fails WP:Sources in numerous instances, some of which are listed below:
 Edits made include
  • The Guru's official website is no longer cited. It was cited at five places, where secondary sources had already been cited.
  • Singapore Katha recitation citation removed. AICB biography is cited there already.
  • JRHU website is no longer cited, citations have been replaced by secondary sources wherever required.
  • Totalbhakti citations have been removed, other secondary sources are already cited for the same.
  • jrhu.8m.net is no longer cited. The sentence has been commented out till a secondary source is found for the same.
  • jagadgururambhadracharya.org is no longer cited. One citation has been replaced by the Handbook of Universities. Tulsi Award 2011 and quotes from Sunil Kumar Pintoo and Nitish Kumar have been commented out till a secondary source is found.
  • Astrojyoti citations have been removed, Zee News and Webdunia Hindi are already cited for the same.
  • Kuber Music website URL has been removed from the CD citation.
  • [96]^ "अष्टावक्र पर सारगर्भित चर्चा [Compendious discussion on Aṣṭāvakra]" is no longer hosted on Rajasthan Patrika's website. The citation has been replaced by "वक्ताओं ने कही अपनी बात [Orators speak out their views]" on the Dainik Bhaskar website.
  • For the composition of Sribhargavaraghaviyam in sixth Payovrata, only Dinkar is now cited instead of both Rambhadracharya and Dinkar.

To the best of my information, Rambhadracharya himself is now cited only where required, e.g. for his original quotes, his speech at the UN, for listing his works after 2008 (works upto 2008 have been covered by Nagar 2002 and Dinkar 2008), and for his opinions on conventions used in the critical edition of RCM. These are not an issue IMHO since it is clearly stated in the article that they are his own quotes, opinions or works.

2c. Fails WP:OR in the following instances:
  • As a result, his numbering convention is the same as that followed by Philip Lutgendorf.[86]
  • I am unable to verify the equation of Shastri, Acharya, Vidyavaridhi and Vachaspati to bachelors, masters, doctoral and D.Litt degrees respectively. I am treating this as original research for now until adequate sources can be produced which state this explicitly.
  • Lakcing a cite, I am going to treat the line "Thereafter he was known as Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya." as WP:OR
 All three stated failures of WP:OR have been addressed
  • Lutgendorf statement has been removed, it was also not relevant to the topic.
  • Two books have been cited for the equivalence of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University degrees Shastri, Acharya, Vidyavaridhi and Vachaspati to Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, PhD and D.Litt respectively. The former terms are used by other Sanskrit universities also, for example Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan.
  • The line "Thereafter he was known as Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya." has been supported by a citation from the book by Shanti Lal Nagar.

Invalid ISBN

  • Dwivedi, Mukund (2007) [First Edition 1981]. हज़ारी प्रसाद द्विवेदी ग्रन्थावली ४ (Corrected and extended ed.). New Delhi, India: Rajkamal Publication Pvt Ltd. pp. 273–274. ISBN 972812671358-5. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Citation has an invalid ISBN, and the book does not appear in WorldCat. If you have a copy of this book, could you please correct the ISBN? Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Typo. The correct ISBN of the set of books is 978812671358-5 and not 972812671358-5. I will correct the same - the ISBN can be confirmed here (Google Books has got the wrong title, the citation has the correct one). Nmisra (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Done, thanks for pointing out the error. Nmisra (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed simplified mark-up for poems

Here is a simplified mark-up that I am suggesting you consider using for the layout of the poems:

Devanagari
मेरे गिरिधारी जी से काहे लरी
तुम तरुणी मेरो गिरिधर बालक काहे भुजा पकरी
सुसुकि सुसुकि मेरो गिरिधर रोवत तू मुसुकात खरी
तू अहिरिन अतिसय झगराऊ बरबस आय खरी
गिरिधर कर गहि कहत जसोदा आँचर ओट करी

IAST
mere giridhārī jī se kāhe larī
tuma taruṇī mero giridhara bālaka kāhe bhujā pakarī
susuki susuki mero giridhara rovata tū musukāta kharī
tū ahirina atisaya jhagarāū barabasa āya kharī
giridhara kara gahi kahata jasodā ā̐cara oṭa karī

Why did you fight with my Giridhara (Krishna)? You are a young maiden, and my Giridhara (Krishna) is but a child, why did you hold his arm? My Giridhara (Krishna) is crying, sobbing repeatedly, and you stand [looking at him] smirkingly! O Ahir lady (cowherd girl), you are excessively inclined to quarrel, and come and stand here uninvited." Giridhara (the poet) sings – so says Yashoda, holding on to the hand of Giridhara (Krishna) and covering [her face] with the end of her Sari.

Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with this change. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to remove the background colour and border? Or how about having the same background colour as in quoted verses in articles on other poets, e.g. William Shakespeare? Also, does this structure break with floating images (this is the reason why I replaced the original multicol with current table). Nmisra (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If it is the standard structure used for poems, then please go for it. Nmisra (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Devanagari
मेरे गिरिधारी जी से काहे लरी
तुम तरुणी मेरो गिरिधर बालक काहे भुजा पकरी
सुसुकि सुसुकि मेरो गिरिधर रोवत तू मुसुकात खरी
तू अहिरिन अतिसय झगराऊ बरबस आय खरी
गिरिधर कर गहि कहत जसोदा आँचर ओट करी

IAST
mere giridhārī jī se kāhe larī
tuma taruṇī mero giridhara bālaka kāhe bhujā pakarī
susuki susuki mero giridhara rovata tū musukāta kharī
tū ahirina atisaya jhagarāū barabasa āya kharī
giridhara kara gahi kahata jasodā ā̐cara oṭa karī

Removal of Sanskrit name

Redtigerxyz recently removed Guruji's sanskrit name from the infobox. I agree with it partially but I feel Hindi name can and should be included in the infobox as the documentation for the infobox illustrates (it uses Swami Vivekanand as an example). We should also discuss whether Sanskrit should be included in the box. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Hindi and optionally Sanskrit name may be included - I see indic name for Ramkrishna Paramahansa also. Maybe we can have Hindi and Sanskrit in smaller font in same line as Bengali and Hindi are for Vivekananda. Nmisra (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I think both should be there. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
1 Devanagari (Hindi preferred) is enough IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
But he has got sahitya academy award for sanskrit, so we can include that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked, both languages used Devanagari script. I would prefer Sanskrit, since his primary contributions are to Sanskrit, but this isn't a big issue, and I'd be fine either way. Lynch7 09:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We can use IAST instead of Devanagari, but it will be a little weird. There seems to be a consensus, so i am adding both hindi and sanskrit, as the discussion will proceed, we will decide whether to keep both or just one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes

What does the WP:MOS say on the usage of footnotes as opposed to parenthesis. Vibhijain moved most text in parenthesis to footnotes – so now we have around 120 notes for citations and 50+ footnotes for explaining terms. Given this is a GA nominee, would be good to follow Wikipedia guidelines and best practices on footnotes. Nmisra (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Parentheses seem acceptable in article text even in featured articles like Vithoba. For other examples, please take a look at any of the GA/FA class articles from this list. There is an overuse of footnotes in this article as of now. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I shall make them less but many policies like WP:LEAD encourage the use of footnotes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
And also as this article uses Indian English, there is no point to explain those terms in brackets, but just so other people can understand it, we can use footnotes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
True, but I think WP:LEAD applies only to the article lead and not the sections. I think moving the pronunciations and parenthesis in the lead to footnotes is a good idea, as it makes the lead clean and easy to read. For the rest of the article, parenthesis is probably okay. My 2 cents. Nmisra (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Mot of them are in the Work section, kindly refer to my new proposal below, i think this will make the no. of footnotes less. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed notes except from the lead. Also made the order as Notes, then References, then Bibliography as per WP:REFGROUP. Nmisra (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to use lower-alpha style for the notes. Firstly,[a] etc are a bit tidier than.[note 1] Secondly, the numbers in note 1 etc did not match the upper-roman numerals in the list of notes which was not particularly helpful. This is a style change which editors are free to reject in the absence of consensus if they wish, in which case I am prepared to self-revert, but I hope you will agree that this is an improvement. --Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree [a] and [b] is better than [note 1] and [note 2]. Nmisra (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be making more changes to the reference handling over the weekend. I will post here to explain the changes. Edit histories for subsequent similar edits will just refer to this section. Of course I hope you will agree they are improvements. Here is an overall summary:

  • concatenate long chains of references only used in one place to a single reference. Improves readability of the article. Already done once. First new example, end of the lead.
  • use list-defined references instead of embedded definitions. This will improve the readability of the source for editors and will be a significant improvement for this article which has so many long reference definitions. First example, end of the lead.
    • (update) each definition in the reference list can be separated by a blank line for clarity, but within a reference, as elsewhere, there should be no blank lines between bullet items. For bullet lists with long items I recommend an empty comment as edit-view separator as used here.
  • reformat moved cite * definitions (no style change at all to the presentation, first example the first definition of the concatenated references in the lead) so that
    • line breaks occur more predictably in the edit window, often before the delimiting vertical bar for each parameter, |param=firstword
    • the definitions are roughly in the presentation order
    • (update) definitions also in the order used by {{Sfn}} and friends (author(s), date or year, page(s)) just in case Sfn is used later
    • url precedes title. This is better as a general habit since it minimises the differences when converting [aurl atitle] into {{cite ... | ... |url=aurl |title=atitle ...}}
  • remove the four column definition for the reference list. I think these are too narrow for these long references, even more so since many have larger Hindi etc glyphs and some are indented further by bullets. We can tweak the colwidth definition to get a nice presentation, I have set them to 35em for now, both the same for consistency...
  • the second edit in this series will remove some references from the lead, to start with only those used elsewhere in the article. The lead is supposed to summarise content elsewhere in the article so the content should mostly not need references in the lead too. A few may be OK but there are far too many.
  • some of the authors (at least) will need to be corrected. I bet that Correspondent is not the correct surname...

--Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (updated) Mirokado (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Works

I think the Work section is too big, i think making a article like Adi Shankara bibliography will be helpful. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WOuld help. Nmisra (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This is done now. Nmisra (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vallabha Acharya??

Vallabhacharya was not the previous Jagadguru Ramanandacharya. Please remove that. Nmisra (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But source 97 says that हरिद्वार से आये आचार्य चंद्र दत्त सुवेदी ने कहा कि प्रस्थानत्रयी पर सबसे पहले भाष्य आचार्य शंकर ने लिखा और अब वल्लभाचार्य के छह सौ साल बाद जगद्गुरु स्वामी राम भद्राचार्य जी ने लिखा।. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Which means just that the previous Sanskrit commentary on Prasthanatrayi was by Vallabhacharya, it does not say Vallabha Acharya was the previous titleholder of Jagadguru Ramanandacharya. In fact the Pushti Marga leaders have the title of Jagadguru Vallabhacharya. Nmisra (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
But all those who have written Sanskrit commentary on Prasthanatrayi are given the title. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, the infobox gave the impression that Vallbha Acharya was the previous Jagadguru Ramanandacharya, which is not true. Nmisra (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence on

"Influence on" in the Infobox seems to be WP:OR and I suggest its removal. The praise of people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Somnath Chaterjee et al is interpreted to be an "influence". Influence is much more than considering a person praise-worthy. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the whole field should be removed from the infobox. If one can cite a source for the same, they can be added later. Nmisra (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I did that as per on Swami Vivekanand. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Nmisra and did the same. This is a GA and should adhere to rules in a stricter sense. Swami Vivekananda may also need cleaning of that field. While Aurobindo considering Vivekananda a spiritual mentor (changing his life, influencing his philosophy) implies "influence", someone praising Vivekananda just as a great man who changed the world (not particularly his life) may be a right person in the field. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

Recently User:2over0 moved the article to Rambhadracharya. There were 2 supports for Rambhadracharya, 1 for Swami Rambhadracharya and 3 for Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, so i think the move is unnecessary. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Arguments weight more than votes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you but I don't think consensus was there for the move. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not for you alone to decide. Lynch7 13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not doing that, just giving my opinion. ;) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree it is not democracy but who decides the merit of the arguments? The discussion was in my opinion, inconclusive - a similar proposal on Swami Vivekananda has not been implemented yet. I thought the most merit was in the argument of Redtigerxyz that it should be renamed to Swami Rambhadracharya. The GA reviewer and the copy editor from the Guild did not have any issues with the title. 2over0 could have shown some "Wikiquette" (for lack of a better term) by informing of his decision on the talk page before making the move. I expected this since even small changes to structure (footnotes, sections) were first discussed before they were made. Nmisra (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The closing admin (2over0) has followed "Wikiquette". He is not meant to inform of his decision on the talk page before making the move. Never have I seen any admin do so on any earlier move discussion. It is up to the closing admin to decide on the arguments. The GA reviewer and copy editor are supposed to be concerned about the name change. A proper name is not a GA criterion and the copyeditor's job is to make the article error-free in prose. About Swami Vivekananda, the popularity (COMMONNAME), the non-sectarian nature (universal use) of the name and the clause of acceptable use of honorific WP:HONORIFIC were accepted as valid arguments. You may approach the closing admin to elaborate the arguments he deemed valid. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move II

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. According to WP:HONORIFIC, honorifics should generally not be used in front of a name. While there are are exceptions to that rule, insufficient evidence has been presented to overturn the move closed a couple of months ago. --regentspark (comment) 00:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rambhadracharya → Swami Rambhadracharya – Since

Nmisra (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:HONORIFIC says: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." This applies to all cases; if we added that it applies to "Hindu monastic names, Jewish rabbinical styles, Christian pralacies, and Islamic titles of respect" that would weaken it; somebody would argue that it did not apply to secular Hindu titles, or Hawaiian peerages. This means virtually always, as shown by the fact that Father Coughlin (who is much better known by title than by forename) is at Charles Coughlin. This is not the case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My bad - I should have been more clear. I meant in this case WP:HONORIFIC is the general policy and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics is the specific policy, which says widely known as opposed to virtually always. In case of a generic and a specific rule, the specific rule should apply. Exceptions are made for Indic names in case of Guru Nanak (and other Sikh Gurus), Swami Vivekananda, Sai Baba of Shirdi (GA), and Meher Baba (GA), where Guru, Swami, Baba are considered by some to be titles. By the way, even Pope Pius XII (FA) uses a title, even though quite a few references in the bibliography section simply use Pius XII. Nmisra (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
By that logic this article should be at Giridhar Mishra. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposal is for Swami, and not Jagadguru. Most references and Internet resources rarely use the name without Swami or Jagadguru. Nmisra (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. In that case, there isn't enough consistency in the sources ;) . Lynch7 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rambhadracharya/Archive_3&oldid=1089879564"