Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Religion not the Crying need of India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Religion not the Crying need of India

[edit]
(
)

Swami Vivekananda

Moved to mainspace by Titodutta (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

  • The article needs some copyediting for grammar. I was going to do that, but I don't understand the subject enough to know what the sentences are saying exactly. The grammar issues begin in the second and third sentences of the lead - did Vivekananda send the missionaries or did he just wish that they had not been sent? Similar issues in other parts of the article. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Still requires many grammar fixes. The edit to the lead actually introduced new problems as well as fixing old ones. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I made a number of copyedits. Let's see if it works now. I don't think I can review it after the fairly large copyedit. Another question would be whether the article title should be in caps. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • We are using following the official Complete Works. User:99of9, please check the article now. --Tito☸Dutta 05:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I was just thinking of MOS:CT. That guideline doesn't mention that we should copy the capitalization used in a particular reference. I don't know - I'm fairly inexperienced at DYK and not even sure if this is a big deal as far as the review. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The grammar is much better now. I would leave the capitalization as is. The article suggests the speech was mostly about India, but the 1893 report sounds like it was just as much about China. --99of9 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
            • @99of9:, only the first part is about China, from the report— In India, there are 300,000,000 men and women living on an average of a little more than 50 cents a month. ......., from the article but it is bread that the suffering millions of burning India cry out for with parched throats. They ask us for bread, but we give them stones. It is an insult to a starving people to offer them religion;.... etc. --Tito☸Dutta 06:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
              • I suggest you read it again. Not only the first part is about China. The word China pops up again, as does "the East", which includes China. On the other hand, the article completely fails to mention China. --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
                • @99of9:, The newspaper article you are reading was published on 21 Sept 1893 (within 10 hours of the lecture) and it was editorial synthesis. I have not seen any scholarly work which mentions China was a major topic of 20 Sept's lecture. The Complete Works, which was published after years of research works, also did not mention China. So did Chattopadhyay, Engebretson, Burke, Sharma etc. Outlook wrote in their issue of 7 October 1893, "He criticises the work of Christian missions. It is evident that he has not tried to understand Christianity, but neither, as he claims, have its priests made any effort to understand his religion, with its ingrained faiths and race ­prejudices of thousands of years' standing. They have simply come, in his view, to throw scorn on his most sacred beliefs, and to undermine the morals and spiritualist of the people he has been set to teach.",, I was thinking to include this, but, I need to make sure that the Outlook reacted to this 20 Sept's lecture. If we consider Outlook is criticizing 20 Sept's lecture, then Chicago Inter Ocean and the Complete Works do not mention that Vivekananda told Christian Missionaries were throwing "scorn on his most sacred beliefs". "Life of Swami Vivekananda by His Eastern and Western Disciples", Volume II Page 301—302 download link also mentions India and the country's problem were the primary topics of that day's discussion. So, I am unsure. --Tito☸Dutta 07:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked into the issue you raise about Outlook, it may also be a concern, but that's not what I'm concerned about. What do you think the newspaper was "synthesizing"? I'd contend that it was "summarizing". It sure seems to be referring to his speech when it talks about China and The East multiple times. I think the reason the subsequent scholars didn't emphasize China is because they were mostly either from India or concerned with India. That is natural, I'm not suggesting they are biased, just that they concentrated on what was relevent to them. However, if the speech was about India and China, it's a pretty big omission for the wiki article not to say so. That's my only point - I'll let someone else more experienced do the full review if you're in a hurry. --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that is not applicable. The same books mentions his comments on other countries, different religions of the world etc. --Tito☸Dutta 02:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But in summary, you believe the most contemporary source just made up his discussion of China? --99of9 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not supported by scholarly works, complete works. "Complete works" means "Complete works", not "Works on India". All the articles are being written considering "The Complete Works" as the most reliable source. I posted at WT:DYK yesterday. It is a very tough task, as the article creator I can understand it, I am not sure about you. The essay title is "Religion not the Crying need of India", hook is on India. If we add lots of details on China and the East, the essay title "..on India" will be meaningless. The next problematic portion will be this DYK hook, we may need to include China and the East here (but, that was not mentioned in The Complete Works and scholarly works). I have asked User:Nvvchar too (who is a primary contributor). Let's see how it goes. But, even we add details on China and the East, I'll suggest not to add more than 2—3 sentences. --Tito☸Dutta 03:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @99of9:, Nvvchar has made changes. --Tito☸Dutta 05:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Who is "Hoodhad"? --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Replaced with Headland. I do not have time to ask him from where he found Hoodhad, if any other source mentions the name or if it was a typo. --Tito☸Dutta 13:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough, long enough, reasonably cited, not copyvio, grammar now ok. The hook is interesting, and formatted ok, but the word "affirmed" often implies that someone else has said it first and he is just backing it up. I don't think the sources support that version, so if it is changed to "claimed" or "stated" or something similar, then I think the hook is fine. The image is compliant. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think all is in order now. --99of9 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Religion_not_the_Crying_need_of_India&oldid=1022567478"