Talk:Kripalu Maharaj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject India / Literature (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

DYK nomination[edit]

File:JKP Radha Madhav Dham.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:JKP Radha Madhav Dham.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj on TV.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj on TV.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:JKP Bhakti Mandir, Mangarh, India.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:JKP Bhakti Mandir, Mangarh, India.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Prem Ras Siddhant of Shree Kripaluji Maharaj, first published in Hindi in 1955.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Prem Ras Siddhant of Shree Kripaluji Maharaj, first published in Hindi in 1955.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing unsourced or poorly sourced additions[edit]

Someone has added a bunch of unsourced or poorly sourced material, which I have deleted. The material is from unreliable blogs and other websites. Thanks. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also deleting mention of a book that doesn't exist. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also deleted information about an alleged "associate". There is no other wikipedia article that attacks someone because of their associate. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert name change[edit]

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: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)



Kripalu MaharajJagadguru Kripalu Maharaj – Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is the name by which he is most commonly known, and has become his de facto name, and there are other people with similar names which would create confusion. It was originally "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj", but a user moved it to Kripalu Maharaj on April 19th 2012. Lotusjuice (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support by nominator The naming convention has already been discussed: [1]

"Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" gives 60,000 results [2] "Kripalu Maharaj" only gives 18,200 results [3]

Jagadguru is an ordained religious title, not an honorific, and he is so widely known as "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" that it has become his de facto name.

There are other prominent Kripalus and Swami Kripalus and a Kripaluji Maharaj. This would create confusion about who is who. "Jagadguru" is the central point that this Kripalu Maharaj is known for, and the main thing that people would want information about or search for, and a central theme of this article, and as pointed out above, passes the google test for popularity, and has been featured twice on the English wikipedia home page only in relation to the "Jagadguru" title. Therefore, it is necessary to reflect that in the title.Lotusjuice (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to specific policy, the Titles and honorifics section of the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) page says: "Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title." I believe and have shown that this is the case for Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj Lotusjuice (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he will not be confused with anyone with the name, so there is no need to add a title that is not even used in some cases. Unless the purpose of the article is actual self-promotion or a COI bio publishing. Wikidas© 11:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No self promotion whatsoever - just trying to ensure that the article receives the most suitable and appropriate encyclopedic treatment that any article expects to have, and trying to match the title of the article with the material contained in the article following the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) guidelines. You were the one who renamed it to "Kripalu Maharaj" without discussion, and without mentioning that "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj", to most people who know him, is his de facto name. You were also the one who attempted (or did) delete the article on at least one occasion (if not more), claiming that the subject was not notable or for other unexplained reasons so please don't bring up COI. If he is "not notable" or if you have not heard of him, then how are you qualified or well informed enough on the topic to say "Obviously". Lotusjuice (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Final point I'll make is that you are a contributor to (and appear to be a follower of) the article called "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" commonly known as "Swami Prabhupada" or even more popularly as "Prabhupada" (do a google comparison of the two versions of the name), although the article gives no sourced explanation for the "Swami" name/title, and "Swami" is not mentioned as being a prominent aspect of his personality and the title itself is not mentioned as a major aspect of what he is known for, and there is no one else with any of those names or with similar names. My point (although it's not a valid argument as per wikipedia guidelines) is that Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj has much more validity as a title of an article than many other articles under the Naming_conventions_(Indic)guidelines - 1. "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" is more popular on google than "Kripalu Maharaj" 2. "Jagadguru" name is a prominent feature of the article. 3. There are other people with same or similar names to "Kripalu Maharaj". Therefore, not only should the article be called "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj", there is no other article under the Indic naming guidelines that most suitably match the clause: "exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title" as this one. QED Lotusjuice (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Noteworthy news sites like BBC, Al Jazeera, Economic Times, Times of India and Wall Street Journal etc. have all used the name "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj", and not "Kripalu Maharaj". There are no current news articles about him though, so you are right about that. But that is irrelevant to the wikipedia guidelines or the arguments I cited. Lotusjuice (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not good linking. It is better to link exact articles of BBC, Economic Times etc and not Wikipedia articles BBC, Economic Times etc.. anyway, can you please write "oppose" or "support" before your first post here? --Tito Dutta Message 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, here are some specific news references BBC, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 1, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 2 Lotusjuice (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks! --Tito Dutta Message 18:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Couple of other sources which refer to him as "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj": NDTV, ANI (Asia News Network), Telegraph India, Tribune India, Austin Statesman, Hamilton College Journal Article, Indo American News to name a few. He is introduced as Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj on all his TV discourses on Aastha TV, TV Asia, Samay, Sadhna TV, Sanskar TV, Aaj Tak. Here is the aastha schedule. I don't think you can just pick out an arbitrary section of his name (i.e. just "Kripalu Maharaj") and use it as an article title, when the name isn't even his birth name. Either there is a wikipedia article about this individual, or there isn't. And either you believe that his name is Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj, or you don't. If there is to be an article about him, then use the name by which he is known (i.e. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj, not Kripalu Maharaj), as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic). His birth name is Ram Tripathi. Either use his full real name (i.e. Ram Tripathi), or his spiritual one (i.e. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj) but not a partial version of either. Lotusjuice (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can you write at the beginning of your post oppose or support? --Tito Dutta Message 13:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Needless to say, I support changing the name back to the correct, original name (i.e. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj). Lotusjuice (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Jagadguru means "World teacher", clearly an honorific title! See Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Jesus, we deliberately avoid to use honorific title like Mahatma, though whole world use the name [[Mahatma Gandhi]. --Tito Dutta Message 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Mahatma" was just a casual term of respect or endearment (meaning a great soul) given by Rabindranath Tagore, [1] which Gandhi didn't approve of,[2] but which just somehow caught on by the masses. It was never an official title, and Gandhi was a politician, not a religious teacher, and therefore the title would not make so much sense as politicians (even in India) always use their real name. Gandhi's official political documents or communications never used the name "Mahatma Gandhi" - the name was always "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" - hence the title of the wikipedia article. To make a better analogy, you would have to compare Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj with a for-like spiritual personality. A better analogy would be A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, known by the masses as Srila Prabhupada, which is mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) as an example of a religious personality whose wikipedia article should include honorifics. "Bhaktivedanta" is an honorific which means "one who has realised that devotional service to the Supreme Lord is the end of all knowledge", which according to the wikipedia article was given in a somewhat formal setting and is quite widely used. My point above was that A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada isn't even that widely known by that name - do a google comparison of "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada" with "Srila Prabhupada". He is generally respectfully known as Srila Prabhupada. Whereas, "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" is a much more commonly used name than "Kripalu Maharaj" (as per google search comparison), and it was also ordained in a formal setting and is the official name he uses in the context of his work (which is a spiritual teacher). My second point is that there are other spiritual personalities called "Kripalu Maharaj" e.g. ([4]), or Swami Kripalu or Kripalu (e.g. [5]). That is not even the case with A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada that there is anyone else called Srila Prabhupada or anything similar. So, the example which Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) gives of where an honorific should be used as a title - the reasons why Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj's article should be called "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" far exceeds that example. QED Lotusjuice (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As for Jesus, he is commonly known as such (hence the title of the article) and he has no other names. Furthermore, Jesus does not come under the category of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic). Lotusjuice (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You have not added reflist for your references. Anyway, I know those things about M.K.Gandhi, I am currently reviewer of M.K.Gandhi article for Good article status. In your first ref, they have used the name "Ram Kripalu Maharaj" and in [6] second reference they have not used "Maharaj". I am also confused, which name is more popular "Kripalu Maharaj" or "Kripaluji Maharaj"? --Tito Dutta Message 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Reflist added - I got those references from the Gandhi wikipedia article, but didn't read them. "Kripaluji Maharaj" is more popular than "Kripalu Maharaj", but as far as I know, "ji" is not a formal title - it is a term of respect added to a name, like Mister, or Mahatma. It could be argued that Ji is an important part of Indian names. But, I don't think it matters much either way. I have made a quite strong case why Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is an unusual example of a case that exceeds the recommendations for including honorifics as titles given by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic), and so far no one has cited any wikipedia precedence or wikipedia guidelines to contradict my arguments. "Ram Kripalu Maharaj" is similar to "Kripalu Maharaj"... and in the second case, there are other sources which call him "Swami Kripalu Ji Maharaj" or "Swami Kripalu Maharaj" which is similar to "Kripalu Maharaj" - e.g. [7], [8] and [9]. Avoiding confusion of this Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj with the other prominent spiritual teachers with similar names was a minor additional argument I made to use the Jagadguru name in this article. Lotusjuice (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To summarize, I've put forward 8 wikipedia guidelines or precidences or other arguments as my argument for changing the name (back to its original name), and so far no one has given any counter arguments:

1. A discussion on Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board with an admin about this exact article, and this exact subject. The administrator concluded that the article would be called Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj if that is the name he is famous with. I have shown that this is the name used by BBC, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 1, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 2, NDTV, ANI (Asia News Network), Telegraph India, Tribune India, Austin Statesman, Hamilton College Journal Article, Indo American News to name a few.

2. The 'Titles and honorifics' section of Naming_conventions_(Indic) says that honorifics may be used as titles of articles in rare cases where individuals are widely known by an honorific name or with a title. I have shown that Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is the name used in mainstream reliable sources such as BBC, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 1, Indian Government Press Information Bureau 2, NDTV, ANI (Asia News Network), Telegraph India, Tribune India, Austin Statesman, Hamilton College Journal Article, Indo American News to name a few. Therefore, it should also be the name of this article. Wikipedia isn't the place to decide which version of the name to use, if it contradicts these sources? Why have an article on the subject at all, if the title is not as widely used as some other name?

3. Comparing with for-like spiritual teachers: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is listed in Naming_conventions_(Indic) as an example of a spiritual teacher who may use an honorific as his name because it says that he is widely known by that name. I have shown that "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" is much more popular on google than "Kripalu Maharaj". "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" gives 60,000 results [10] "Kripalu Maharaj" only gives 18,200 results [11]. So, it is an unusual case where an honorific or title is the most used name. The wikipedia user who changed the name of "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" to "Kripalu Maharaj" is also an editor of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and has never questioned the validity of using honorifics as the title of that article, because the spiritual teacher of that article is his own teacher. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is not his teacher, and he claimed in a deletion discussion that he is not notable and hadn't heard of him. If he hadn't heard of him, how would he know which version of the name is more popular?

4. An additional point which I haven't mentioned is that Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is used as the name in other language wikipedias since 2007 - namely Gaelic Wikipedia.

5. Avoiding ambiguity - There are other spiritual teachers with similar names as "Kripalu Maharaj" - e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15]), Swami Kripalu or Kripalu (e.g. [16] etc.

6. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is a spiritual teacher, not a politician like Gandhi - politicians use secular names in their line of business). He also comes under the umbrella of indic naming conventions, a very specialized topic, so comparisons with Jesus are invalid.

7. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj is an ordained name, not a name given by followers or a name that just took off, but it has become the name by which he is most known, and has become his de facto name to most people who refer to him. The article gives ample sources about that. It is also the name which he personally uses in his official communications, work and TV Broadcasts (e.g. on Aastha TV). It is also the official name of the author of the book he is famous for (i.e. Prem Ras Siddhant) Lotusjuice (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Found two authoritative Encyclopedias which refer to him as Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj. One is called "Encyclopedia of American Religions" published by Gale_(publisher), but the text is not available online. The other is called "Encyclopaedia of Indian philosophy", published by Anmol Publications. Lotusjuice (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

9. The present name of the article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names.

10. As mentioned by User:ansumang below, the article had gone to main page twice (as Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj) and nobody questioned it. Lotusjuice (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarize.. - really? And you don't need to copy paste things from M.K.Gandhi article or previous admin discussion, it is making the discussion too long.. just link... if you ask someone to give opinion (s)he will face problem to read so many things. BTW, Collect a second opinion from India related noticeboard etc, I do not have any problem if it is moved to Jagadguru.. --Tito Dutta Message 22:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the length!! It's just that in discussions, people don't take your arguments seriously unless you say them strongly! I have asked an admin who edits India and Hinduism related articles for comment. Lotusjuice (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Not like that, see "Feroze Jehangir Gandhi - M.K.Gandhi's adopted son" and also the study table in this section.. here. You may find this interesting, since you'll see I raised a point, and finally discarded my points myself by giving some points against my first point, Ayanosh did not argue strongly and flooded discussion with refs and texts, but finally he won, you also don't need to write unnecessarily just to make your voice heard!
And about that admin, DaGizza is not very regular in Wikipedia these days, he last edited on April 17, though hope he will visit soon! --Tito Dutta Message 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there is quite a bit of inconsistency in this area. It is clear that secular leaders should not have honourific titles but there's no clear line for religious leaders. Swami Vivekenanda is Swami Vivekananda but Swami Dayanand Saraswati is Dayanand Saraswati. The Indic naming conventions are also too vague. They say generally the extra title shouldn't be added except when it is always part of the name like Swami Prabhudada. There should be firmer guidelines. There are always arguments about Swami and Guru names on Wikipedia.
I'm not very familiar with this guru unfortunately. I think in this case the best thing would be to count the name in the references currently being used and see if the name with or without Jagadguru is more common. The best name is the most common name in reliable sources (book and internet). A general Google Search also includes unreliable websites. If it is very 50-50, I would personally err on the side of a shorter name but including Jagadguru in the first sentence as is currently the case. The other name will still be a redirect so it is not a big issue.
Also my views are just that of a third person. It is irrelevant that I'm an admin since this has nothing to do with deleting, protecting or blocking. I'm just here to offer my opinion because I was asked to. Cheers. GizzaTalk © 01:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Swami is a part of name in Swami Vivekananda, see Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move. You better see this list Jagadguru_of_Sringeri_Sharada_Peetham#Jagadgurus, all honorific "Sri"--Tito Dutta Message 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks DaGizza, I will analyze the references in the article for which is the most common version of the name - but I am sure that almost all the sources refer to a "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" rather than the shortened version. As for the Jagadguru_of_Sringeri_Sharada_Peetham, those Jagadgurus are not known as "Jagadguru", and there are almost no sources which call them that or even claim that they are Jagadgurus. And anyway, "Sri" is also an honorific, which proves my point to some extent. A better analogy would be Maharishi Mahesh Yogi where Maharishi is a self-given honorific meaning "great seer". However, he is so well known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that it would sound strange to leave it out. The main point I am trying to make is that "Kripalu Maharaj" without the Jagadguru part sounds strange to anyone who is familiar with the subject of this article. Lotusjuice (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support (I am least bothered about names) Its not a big issue. He is only one with title Jagadguru after centuries. And the article had gone to main page twice, nobody said anything. Whatever we should stick to WP:COMMONNAME policy. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify what you said above, you meant that the article had gone to the front page under the name "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" and no one had a problem with that. So yes, and as per DaGizza's request, I checked all the sources on the page, and they all refer to him as Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj, except for one or two. All books and newspaper articles and encyclopedias refer to him as Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj. The one or two that didn't call him that, mostly called him other nicknames names such as "Maharajji Kripalu", and were mostly unreliable, personal or spammy websites. Also, there are dozens of other reliable sources which call him Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj that aren't mentioned in the article. It's the name he uses himself and his books are authored by, that everyone knows him by, and that is referred in all reliable sources. And I support the name change, you weakly support it, Titodutta first opposed it then said he doesn't mind if it's changed, and DaGizza said to check the sources on the page for the most common version of the name, and I did, and the overwhelming most common is as I have said. So there is no disagreement on this issue. It must be renamed back to Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj. QED.Lotusjuice (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if it is a common name, then it must be. We have been following common name policy strictly. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 11:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus reached. Lotusjuice (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to the biography of a living person where there are NPOV issues such as ascribing a religious honorific. The subject may simply be mentioned more often in sources which apply such honorifics. None of the other Jagadguru have the title in WP:TITLE. Kripaluji Maharaj appears in Google Scholar only once as "Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj" - double honorific. As regards Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, I'm not convinced (a) that this passes, (b) that the current state of that guideline is consistent with other WP:Naming conventions (clergy) series guidelines either. This would need more discussion and input from WT:Religion. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Your reference to NPOV in WP:COMMONNAME is invalid, as WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say anything about titles or honorifics and doesn't contradict Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics. WP:COMMONNAME does talk about NVOP, but the examples it cites are such as the Teapot Dome scandal, where there is some judgement passed - i.e. it is called a scandal. It also says "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title". And that is my argument.Lotusjuice (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It is also not true about religious honorifics. There are multiple Indian religious leaders, such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Swami Vivekananda. In those cases, Maharishi means "enlightened spiritual one" and "Bhaktivedanta" is an honorific which means "one who has realised that devotional service to the Supreme Lord is the end of all knowledge" and Swami means "Master". See renaming discussion for Swami Vivekananda: see Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move. So you argument about honorifics is invalid in cases where the subject is more widely known by that title. The other people with Jagadguru as a title are all ancient figures and are not widely known by that name, and certainly Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics does not apply in those cases. Just as there are many Maharishis who are not widely known by that name. So, according to past precedent, and I believe WP:COMMONNAME, and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, and common sense, the article should be renamed to Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say anything about "biography of a living person where there are NPOV issues such as ascribing a religious honorific", so it is not clear one way or another. Indic naming conventions is a very specialized subset of naming conventions and common names, and the problem, and the reason why there is such long discussion is because there's currently no adequate guidelines. In unique and vague cases like this, you have to look at precedent, previous discussion as well as common sense. Previous discussions and guidelines are Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move, Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board/Archive_3#Naming_Conventions, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics as well as the arguments on this page and looking at Gaelic Wikipedia]. You said "The subject may simply be mentioned more often in sources which apply such honorifics", although there are 100s of mainstream sources, such as BBC, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, Economic Times, Indian Government Press Information Bureau, NDTV, ANI (Asia News Network), Telegraph India, Tribune India, Austin Statesman, Hamilton College Journal Article, Indo American News (and the many other sources I listed above) and a few encyclopedias that refer to him as "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj". So that argument is invalid because these sources have no reason to use honorifics - they use that name because that is his common name, and the name by which he is known by. Sources that refer to him as "Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj" are independent from the subject and even from the Hindu religion, so they are not sources "that use honorifics". Also, as I said above, there are a few more people with "Kripalu Maharaj" as their name, so it creates ambiguity. Finally, as someone familiar with this topic, I can say that "Kripalu Maharaj" sounds wrong, because he is not known by that name. What is the point in having an article that uses a random part of someone's common name? It would be like having an article about George Clooney and calling it Eorge_Cloon - well not exactly, but its about choosing a random part of someone's name that they are not known by, and using it as an article title. There's no point to that. The article was always called 'Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj' until a week ago, when a user randomly renamed it to the current article title without having a discussion. Lotusjuice (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Also see Acharya Maharajshree Tejendraprasad Pande as an example of where the honorific Acharya is included in the name. Lotusjuice (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sticking with oppose, thanks all the same Lotusjuice, that's a long explanation, for which thanks. But doesn't change my view that Wikipedia shouldn't have such an honorific as part of the title per Jagadguru Adi Shankara or Jagadguru Mahavatar Babaji. This is a "claim":

The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality - Page 193 James K. Walker - 2007 Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat, Shree Kripaluji Maharaj Austin, TX: A HINDU nonprofit religious organization formed to promote the teachings of its founder, who claims to be the fifth Jagadguru (divine presence descended to earth) in the last 5000 years.

The Melton section "Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj (born in 1922 as Ram Kripalu Tripathi in Mangarh, near Allahabad, India)" would be very good for lede, but not title which is fine as is. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, and that is what this discussion is about. Harvest House, who are the publishers of The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality (the book you referenced above) calls itself a Christian publisher that "publishes Christian fiction and non-fiction books". Let me quote Encyclopedia of American Religions, published by Gale (publisher) (a non denominational publisher), which is a standard reference work in the study of religion in the United States (as mentioned on the book's wikipedia page - (I also have the print copy of this book):

Encyclopedia of American Religions - Page 1011 - The Divine Love Mission grew out of the work of the devotion inspired by Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj (born in 1922 as Ram Kripalu Tripathi in Mangarh, near Allahabad, India). After completing his formal education at the age of 16 he found his way to Vrindavan and the next year emerged as a guru known affectionately as Shri Maharajji. He is remembered for leading devotees in a six-month continuous chanting of the Hare Krishna mantra when he was only 17 years old. He was 34 years old when given the title "Jagadguru" by the Kashi Vidvat Parishad, a group of Hindu scholars.

Lotusjuice (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
As regards to whether honorifics should be used in article names - that is less relevant to the point that there should be, and are, provisions for cases in which the subject of the article is overwhelmingly known by that name. And I think I have shown that. There would be no point having an article with a name that is not recognized by people who know the subject. The vast majority of Indic honorifics are self given, or given by disciples in a rather informal way, and even they have been accepted in cases where the honorific has become the common name - e.g. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the other examples I cited. In this case of the subject of this article, the title was awarded by an external scholarly body, as well as becoming the common name. As regards your examples of Adi Shankara and Mahavatar Babaji, their articles don't even mention the word "Jagadguru" let alone claim that it is their common name. Lotusjuice (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For reasons given above, and because the majority of Indian and Hindu religious figures suffer from an excess of honorifics, whether self-applied or applied by their followers. Jesus and Gandhi are known by the common anglicisations of their original names, and this practice should be general. Imc (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but that exact topic (Gandhi and Jesus) was already discussed above in detail and resolved: Indian religious leaders' naming conventions are entirely different than politicians' naming conventions, so you can't compare this article with a politician's article. As for using honorifics in titles, there are plenty of precedents of articles that use honorifics as titles, e.g. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Swami Vivekananda, Acharya Maharajshree Tejendraprasad Pande etc. Furthermore, it has already been discussed that honorifics can be used in cases where the subject is overwhelmingly used as the name - see: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics and Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move. So your argument doesn't hold. Jesus doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, but it does adhere to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names, as does my argument. Strictly adhering to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names requires that the article be renamed back to what it was a week ago, before it got moved. Lotusjuice (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment and in reply to the justifications repeatedly given above; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) is still a proposal and not a WP policy. The discussion page there shows that there is is disagreement over the proposed statement on honorifics. Hence it cannot really be used here other than as a reference to previous discussions. The general conventions still apply; to quote from that discussion page - The general principle at work should be that the honourific is only used if it is necessary to disambiguate it from another article. Imc (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Final Comment: With regards to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) just being a proposal and not a WP policy, that's fine, and I know that. But it's the best we have in a rather grey area of wikipedia. However, Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes (which is a WP policy) clearly states exactly the same thing. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics is just a specific case of Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes- which also says:

In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name. There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (presently at Charles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa.

When it boils down to it, everything has to adhere to Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names, as ansumang said above. The fact that there are alot of Kripalu Maharaj's is more reason why the article should be renamed. And I reiterate, that people who are familiar with the subject would find it strange to see "Kripalu Maharaj" without the "Jagadguru".
So with regard to consensus, we have support from: Me, thisthat2011, ansumang, Gizza (although he didn't write support), Titodutta (although he said oppose, then said he doesn't mind) and we have oppose from: In_ictu_oculi and Imc. Combining my airtight arguments and the general leaning towards "support", I think it's fairly obvious that the article needs to be renamed back to what it was a week ago before someone changed it without discussion, as per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics, and the exception in Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes. Lotusjuice (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2012 (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.

Infobox![edit]

I have added an infobox in the article, most of the fields are blank (foundation, literary works etc), I request a primary contributor of the article to fill these fields. If you need any help you can ping me in my talk page! --Tito Dutta Message 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. When I get time, I will gather some additional information for this box. Lotusjuice (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ Tagore Rabindranath (15 December 1998). Dutta, Krishna. ed. Rabindranath Tagore: an anthology. Robinson, Andrew. Macmillan. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-312-20079-4
  2. ^ Desai, Mahadev H. (1983). Autobiography: the story of my experiments with truth. Mineola, N.Y: Dover. p. viii. ISBN 0-486-24593-4.

Nelson Mandela Peace Award[edit]

Although the name sounds very prestigious, I could find no indication that it is a significant or noteworthy award. Generally speaking, awards mentioned in articles should only be included if they are significant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Since the majority of sources I could find that mention the award are minor blurbs talking about the JKP (or JPK, as a lot of sources mistakenly call it), this doesn't appear to qualify. Since the award doesn't appear to be significant enough to have its own article (Nelson Mandela Peace Award), this should not be included in the article, in my opinion. To be clear, nobody is denying that the JKP did receive the award, only that it should be included in the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)