Talk:Swami Vivekananda/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

over-imaged

IO the article has excessive images, sometimes hindering pleasant viewing of the text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Gour Mohan Mukherjee street and Vivekanandar Illam (see this) can be done away with. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotation in lead

Why do we have quotes in the lead. Lead is supposed to be functional summary of the article. Quotes in the lead is very rare. Quotes by Aurobindo and Gandhi need to be removed. However, "sister and brother of America" could be o, as this is very uch notable for the topic. Also, the lead mentions that Ramakrishna taught Vivekananda that service to god can be achieved by service to mankind, but that is not mentioned in the text (maybe was removed recently). I guess this can be removed from the lead as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

small review before nomination

hi guys have a look here , Shrikanthv (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

small review before nomination

hi guys have a look here , Shrikanthv (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A few points

  • The article shows his mother's name as "Bhuvaneswari Devi", whereas her signature shows "Dasi" instead of "Devi" and a note below the article also states this. This variation should be explained, to avoid confusion by non-Indian readers. The concerned note (not the main article) should explain that only Brahmin ladies were entitled to write "Devi" after their names and others had to use "Dasi". The form of her name as "Bhuvaneswari Devi" is a comparatively modern rendering in view of the derogatory meaning of "Dasi".
A non notable, and a clear WIKI:NPOV point of view by only one author and no other sources found confirming the same, " derogatory meaning " seems to be point of view , there were other personalities like Purandara dasa , kanaka dasa . dasi or dasa does not mean that they were derogatory , removing the notes as objectionable and a non notable, against WIKI:NPOV , point of view.Shrikanthv (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Could not understand your point. My remark was about married Bengali females of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Your examples are about non-Bengali males, for whom, "Dasa" was part of their monastic names; naturally it is not derogatory in the sense of "servant of God". "Dasa" or "Das" cannot also be deemed as derogatory when it is used as the family surname. My comment was not about monastic names or family surnames. Please try to understand the context. Married Bengali women of the previous centuries customarily did not use their family surnames. Those belonging to Brahmin and Vaidya castes used "Devi" (= goddess) in place of the surname (e.g. Swarnakumari Devi, Ashapoorna Devi, Mahasweta Devi for Brahmins; Maitreyi Devi and Radharani Devi for Vaidyas). Women of other castes used the term "Dasi" (= maid-servant) in place of surname (as in Binodini Dasi). Because of this custom, mothers of Michael Madhusudan Dutt and Swami Vivekananda could not have used "Devi" in place of surname during their lifetimes; but in modern times, when their names are mentioned, the term "Devi" is used and not "Dasi". This is a matter of history, and not a matter of any "point of view". I agree about this point not being notable for the current article. But the article already hinted about it in a note; so I suggested that the note should clarify it. Hrishikes (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Another point. Why does the article not show the religious order of Vivekananda? An article on a scientist shows whether he is physicist or chemist or biologist. Nowadays, saying "physicist" is not enough. You need to say whether he is particle physicist or astrophysicist. Similarly, an article on a monk should state his religious order; stating only his religion as Hindu and sect as Advaita are not enough. Vivekananda's diksha was from Ramakrishna and Ramakrishna's diksha was from Totapuri. This Totapuri belonged to the Dashanami Sampradaya; so this is Vivekananda's religious order (sub-order: Puri; religious name: Vividhishananda Puri; the name "Vivekananda" assumed later at the suggestion of the Raja of Khetri). The term "Vividhishananda" is a Sanskrit word, being a religious name, and should not be spelled with "b" in Bengali fashion as done within the article. Moreover, Vivekananda was not "crowned with the name Vivekananda" by the Raja of Khetri as mentioned in the article; giving a religious name is the prerogative of a monk and beyond the competence of a raja. If the article aspires to be a good article, such technicalities should be accurate.
  • Irrespective of later achievements, an article on an individual should show his name as written in his mother-tongue. This is a general principle, followed in plenty of articles in Wikipedia. Moreover, if the article on Jesus can show his name in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic, why an article on Vivekananda cannot show the name in Bengali script? The name in Devanagari script should be shown also (Bengali being his m.t. and English & Hindi being official languages of India at present), to conform to his status as national and international figure. Devanagari script is also indicated because "Vivekananda" is not a Bengali word; being a religious name, it's a Sanskrit word (It is a Bengali word for other Bengali people non-religiously named "Bibekananda").
  • About the Chicago speech. Insertion or appropriate wikilink to either a written (here) or an audio (Audio file "Swami Vivekananda Welcome Speech Addresses at The Parliament of Religions.ogg" not found) version or both, is a must for this article. The audio version is not in Vivekananda's voice, but probably the later HMV release; but it will do, with a suitable note.

Hrishikes (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete copy of

was looking, not only close paraphrasing but copy pasting from here

ankurpandey.com/i-adore-vivekananda-early-life.php

readanddigest.com/swami-vivekananda-biography/

indianetzone.com/56/monastic_life_swami_vivekananda.htm


!!! Needs to be undone also some more here http://www.customwritings.com/plagiarism-report.html?id=7cfe4d85b346687a04218745349c164a_1356169616:1240155 Shrikanthv (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:MIRROR? --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
These are copied FROM wikipedia. These do not pose problem. The close paraphrasing that I have found were from books that are published significantly before present. One book published in 2008 did actually copy from wikipedia, since the similar sentences present in here and the book were present in the article in 207, while the book was published in 2008. But that is just one case. But, there were extensive copy-pasting from Banhatti's book and Chandrakunnel's book, and also a few others. I have mostly cleared these close parphrasing from "First visit to the West" downwards, upto the end of the text. I am not so sure about the initial part of the article, although I have done some clearing randomly.
If you pick every sentence, and paste those in google search, especially google book search, you may come up with hits that are suspiciously similar. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Death of Swami Vivekananda! Third heart attack?

About this edit

The Hindustan Times article which quotes Shankar seems to be quoted from either Achena Ajana Vivekananda or Abishashyo Vivekananda. In that book author told a number of possibilities and did not conclude anything. Reading from the book

একজন ডাক্তার (ডাক্তার বিপিন ঘোষ) বললেন, সন্যাস রোগে দেহত্যাগ হয়েছে। মহেন্দ্র ডাক্তার বলে গিয়েছিলেন, হৃৎক্রিয়া বন্ধ হওয়াই মহাপ্রয়াণের কারণ। অন্য ডাক্তারেরা ভিন্ন মত প্রকাশ করলেন। "মাথার ভেতর কোনও শিরা ছিঁড়ে গিয়েছে"।....

  • Source: Śaṅkara (2005). Acenā ajānā Bibekānanda (6. saṃskaraṇa. ed.). Kalakātā: Sahityam. p. 277. ISBN 8172670346.

I don't know how Hindustan Times has concluded that Vivekananda passed away following a third heart attack with pointing Shankar's books! I posted a comment there, I can see that has not been approved still. I'll try to contact once again. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


This roughly translates to— One doctor (Bipin Ghosh) opined that stroke was the reason for death. Doctor Mahendra said that cardiac arrest was the reason for death. Other doctors differed and said, "Some veins were torn inside the brain."
My own commentary—I am not sure what they meant by veins torn inside teh brain. It can refer to a burst of an aneurysm, or a hemorrhagic stroke (may be intracranial hemorrhage versus cerebral hemorrhage). Mahendra Lal Sarkar merely said that it was a cardiac arrest, he probably did not refer to a myocardial infarction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Achena Ajana Vivekananda is available in English as The Monk As Man: The Unknown Life of Swami Vivekananda. The crucial page 229 is missing in google books preview, but page 230 states, "...physicians thought the signs were consistent with the rupture of a blood vessel in the brain". Besides, HT's credibility isn't great when it comes to politicized stories. Recent Gujarat elections have done exactly that to Swami Vivekananda. I can give further details if this is taken to RSN. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Vivekananda's house in Raipur image

Someone tried to add an image of Vivekananda's Raipur house which I have rejected for the following reason: Image flooding is a long time problem in this article. Last time we talked here: here! And when we are not adding image of his ancestral house etc (we have a bunch of images in Commons), there should not be any scope for his Raipur house! (BTW, at WT:INB I have posted about this image too)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Here is the proof . Even swamivivekananda.org acknowledges that Swamiji stayed in this house while in Raiour in 1877 http://www.swamivivekananda.org.in/gallery/index.php/Swami-Vivekananda/220px-ivekanand_Raipur_Home_1877

The owner of this house as of today is a couple Mr and Mrs Bose who both are more than 80 years old. The lady Mrs Abha Bose has inherited this property. Her great grand father Rai Bahadur Bhootnath Dey was the only good lawyer in Raipur in 1877 and he was a friend of Swami Vivekananda's father. Times have changed and the whole house compund has been renovated but they havnt touched this part of the building. The elderly couple runs a shool in this compound now but these 2 rooms are locked.The couple has refused to hand over the building to the state government who wants to convert it a memorial.Last month a detailed photo feature had appeared on Dainik Bhaskar which is one of the largest circulated newspapers in India Hope everyone can read hindi here :- http://www.bhaskar.com/article/c-16-499636-NOR.html -- Theasg sap (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here proof is not needed! Continue at the WT:INB thread! (Here) the image was not removed for lack of proof! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda Technical University and Swami Vivekananda Airport

I have added 2 lines making people aware of the Swami Vivekananda Technical University and Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur. This is a matter of pride that a new state of Chhattisgarh is giving so much respect to Swamiji as a national hero who had spent 2 years in the state (Raipur 1877-1879). I hope that no sane person can vandalise and remove my post -- Theasg sap (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Authorized sampradayas as per the Puranas

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ|
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ||
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ|
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt||
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ|
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ||

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

As seen from the above verses in the Padma Purāṇa, the four Sampradāyas are at least documented.

-59.95.1.219 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this intended as an edit to the article? If so, we will need a wp:RS to support it. That would have to be from outside the devotional literature (that is, about the belief, not of the belief). LeadSongDog come howl! 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Completely unrelated and irrelevant in Vivekananda biography article! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The verse about sampradayas is not irrelevant. It is just to point out that, as per authorized Puranas, Swami Vivekananda did not belong to any of the four authorized sampradayas. Hence I humbly beg to state that, his and others' (who are not inside the bonafide sampradayas, [as well as those who belong to one of the sampradayas and do not preach accordingly]) teachings are fruitless. I know Wikipedia readers will be unable to judge this, but someone still may be guided, by the verse. Thank you.

-59.95.7.139 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe this. I read somewhere, Vivekananda was asked ("hurt") multiple times by cynical and over-conservative Hindu Brahmins etc about his caste. This was cheap attempts to disregard Vivekananda's teachings. But, that was nineteenth century! I just don't believe it is still happening in twenty-first century. In clear words, we'll NOT add such information in the article. --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For starters, that would be original research. We can't lift verses from Padma Purana and draw our own conclusions about Swami Vivekananda from that. We need a reliable secondary source to do that for us. Besides, Padma Purana is a Vaishnava text dated to anywhere between 900–1400 CE.[1][2] During the same period, Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita) and Madhvacharya (Dvaita), who are listed as heads of two of the lineages of Vaishnava sampradaya in Padma Purana, founded their own schools which were very critical of Advaita/Adi Shankara/Dashanami Sampradaya. In fact, Shankara was called a crypto–buddhist (pracchanna bauddha) by Ramanuja. I wouldn't be surprised if they had similar thoughts about Vivekananda being fraudulent etc. Even if you found sources for this, we would still have to consider WP:DUE here while including opinions from sects and New Age movements like Theosophy which were opposed to Vivekananda. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Swami Kriyananda

Hi, I am requesting Talk page input on the recent removal of 'Swami' from Swami Kriyananda. I do not believe this improves the article, but does introduces a subtly biased tone, and is arbitrary. Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the editors at Kriyananda have removed 'Swami' from his name there, citing WP policy on honorifics, 'Swami' here, too, must be removed. Otherwise, we have an policy arbitrarily used to reduce the prestige of a Swami. Jack B108 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For Vivekananda, "Swami" is common name. See Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2#Requested_move --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
'Swami Kriyananda' was the common name of Kriyananda, too. Either all the 'Swami's go, or none of them [which would have been the professional thing to do]. Jack B108 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC) name in the signature added by Tito Dutta (contact) 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You have read neither Swami Vivekananda RM, nor Kriyananda RM! Go and argue there at Kriyananda's talk page. --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to comment here. Tito is correct that Vivekananda is almost always referred to with the Swami honorific. WP:COMMONNAME does allow for exceptions, as does WP:HONORIFIC. The latter says, inter alia, Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (currently atCharles Coughlin) and Mother Teresa. I have no opinion regarding the Kriyananda situation because I've never even heard of the guy but it is a matter for the talk page relating to him, not this one. Other stuff exists, and suggesting that if A happens at B then the same must happen at C is simply not correct. There really is no point in continuing this thread unless someone does propose a move of this article. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my proposal to remove 'Swami' from 'Swami Vivekeananda'. But I challenge all of you to look for bad, biased writing in similar articles and try to correct it. Jack B108 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I will leave the editing on all three pages in question to all of you for now. If I come back to the religious pages of the world's #1 English encyclopedia months from now and see ragged editing, as can be observed right now at Kriyananda, I won't take any responsibility for it, if you don't mind. My sincere apologies for my certainly provactive attempt to defend the Kriyananda page by pointing out glaring inconsistencies and unfairness across these three related pages. I have failed. You win. Ciao, Jack B108 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are not understanding! At least I am not against that Requested Move. I am saying, I don't know about Kriyananda, but, in this article, "Swami" is not an honorific, but a COMMONAME. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 14:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand perfectly. 'Swami Vivekananda' should remain as is, in my opinion. If you are interested in the bigger issue and consistency and fairness with the use of 'Swami', I am happy. 'Swami Kriyananda' was and is the 'common name', too. Yours, Jack B108 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj influence on Narendra

@TheMandarin, Dwaipayanc, Nvvchar, and LeadSongDog: Generally it is considered and written Narendra's initial religious beliefs were shaped by Brahmo Samaj. But, Rajagopal Chattopadhyay in his book Corrective Biography 1999 pp 31 and 32 has argued and told, Narendra was not interested in Brahmo Samaj's doctrines and used to go there for his interests in music. Should we mention it? If "yes", how and where, because we have written about Brahmo influence for which Narendra initially did not accept Ramakrishna idol worship etc? --Tito☸Dutta 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I do not agree. This reference [3] which I have used in the article on Relationship between Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda on page 27 states -Ramakrishna had shifted allegiance to Brahmo Samaj in 1878 following a schism in the movement … Mohan Mitra recalled that he had heard Vivekananda declare “but for Ramakrishna I would have been Brhmo missionary…” Let us not disturb this understanding now.--Nvvchar. 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with NVVChar. Let's not disturb the current status.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Majority of secondary scholarly works by Amiya Sen, Jackson, etc., do not agree with this, so i don't think opinion of a single author is worth mentioning. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Math" vs. "Mutt"

I've rejected an IP edit with the following comment: "'Mutt' is the way the word needs to be spelled to give reader its closest hindi pronunciation. 'Math' is grossly misleading"

In pursuit of fairness, I'd like to ask others for comment on this, as I'm uncertain which is more correct, but if the comment is indeed correct, it may be worth a change. I'll leave this to the editors who know more. {C  A S U K I T E  T} 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Math is correct of course, and is only grossly misleading if you assume the word has to be pronounced the same way as the short form of mathematics. An alternative is the original Sanskrit Matha. Imc (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

freedom fighter

he is the one of the freedom fighter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.180.238 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There was a majority in favor of the move, and it accords with current practice as documented in MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:NCIN#Titles and honorifics. Those guidelines do not allow the frequency of use of the title to play a role in deciding the article name, except in unusual cases like Mother Teresa where the name would be unrecognizable without the title. Arguments that cite COMMONNAME are not persuasive given the plain language of MOS:HONORIFIC. There were past move discussions in Talk:Vivekananda/Archive 1 and Talk:Vivekananda/Archive 2. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


Swami Vivekananda → Vivekananda – high profile article contrary to WP:HONORIFIC, and also going contrary to WP:NPOV, secular sources and Britannica. Past RMs (at roughly 18 month intervals in Archive 1 and 2) indicate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against applying WP:HONORIFIC for removal of the honorific here, per e.g. arguments that religious books outweigh secular books in Google Books (which of course they do), so this RM is likely to end at "no consensus" in 7 days. If and when it does, this should then go forward to a 30-day RfC to try and gain input from a broader selection of editors than an RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Per, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) the honorific of Swami is on the list of titles that should be questioned. Further, the exceptions "may be made in cases where the subject is not known except with titles or other honorifics". This isn't the case here, this individual is clearly widely known by the proposed name. In terms of my search results, they were executed with WP:GOOGLETEST in mind and are meant to show that there is plenty of usage of the name without the honorific.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • They need to add exceptions, specially here where the name commonname. Tito☸Dutta 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This individual is perfectly recognizable without a religious honorific; there isn't another notable person named "Vivekenanda" to disambiguate. The honorific does belong in the lead, as is usual practice, but not elsewhere. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not an honorific here. That's common name. Tito☸Dutta 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As per above arguments, there is good reason to apply standard policy here. Imc (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Following standard policy we should name it "Swami Vivekananda" --Tito☸Dutta 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious Oppose for reasons Tito will mention in better manner. And interesting to note that this RM started only after Swami Vivekanand was mentioned as an example at Talk:Agnivesh#Requested_move. One must appreciate the requester's super natural talent of gauging that "Swami" is not a commonly referred way in such a short time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know why they use Swami Vivekananda for example. It is similar to Gautama Buddha (Buddha means "awakened", honorific? no, common name) "Mahatma Gandhi" ("Mahatma" means "Great soul"). For Gandhiji it might be common name too, for others it is honorific. They added a Google Book link above (the first support vote) in this RM to show "Vivekananda" recognizable. Follow their Google Books link, right from the third or fourth link, search query is not in title, you'll getjust mentions somewhere in the book. On the other hand check these Bibliography_of_Swami_Vivekananda#S. I'll add a FAQ box above after this RM. --Tito☸Dutta 12:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move. Classic clash between WP:HONORIFIC and WP:COMMONNAME, but I think omitting the honorific can be done without loss of clarity, so best to omit it. Although... I see no need for an RFC should the move fail, the current title is clearly acceptable; one of these guidelines will be broken no matter what, it's not vastly at odds with Wikipedia policy or anything. No need for pre-emptive sour grapes here. SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Exceptions exist and that must be accepted. In the names of "Mother Tersa" of "Mahatma Gandhi" there is no honrific, everything is common name. Since 1893's Parliament of World Religions, Chicago, everyone is using the name "Swami Vivekananda", and here in Wikipedia few editors try to drop "Swami" from the name. In last move too we provided a lot of sources and we need to argue every-time, because some people don't search before posting. Tito☸Dutta 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move - will not break wp:COMMONNAME and will resolve both the wp:HONORIFIC and wp:NCIN problems. I fear that Tito may be under the mistaken impression that removing the prefix exhibits disrespect. It does not. Rather the reverse: such labels are seen by many western readers as pidgeonholing the person to whom they are applied. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not really. They are asking to remove the word "Swami" because they have somehow learned that it is an honorific. But did you know the suffix "-ananda" is also an honorific? It means "glory" or "delight", if I say "examplananda" (example+ananda), it means "glory of "example". And if closely examined, one may say the whole name [Swami+Vivek+Ananda) is an honrific. Here the question is not about honorific, it is common name, from the lady of 1893 Chicago Parliament who felt "delighted" to invite "Swami Vivekananda" to our latest Narendra Modi, everyone calls him "Swami Vivekananda". historical documents, historical events, books, research papers, newspapers, journals, films, other media (drama etc) everywhere he is "Swami Vivekananda" — (also note, these are not occasional mentions, they continuously use the "full common name") what else do we need? Tito☸Dutta 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As has been repeatedly explained, that doesn't matter. We use the simplest article title we can while avoiding confusion. Bill Clinton, not President William Jefferson Clinton. If Vivek were unique to one subject, that would be the correct title, but since it is not, we need -ananda to disambiguate. We do not need "Swami" because "Vivekanada" refers to only one article. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I envy you. Ignorance is such a bliss. Vivek wasn't his name. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Attempting to bait Tito, or me? That is is generally not regarded as constructive dialog, please stop. You are correct that Vivek wasn't his name. No source, so far as I can tell, says it was. But many sources do call him Vivekananda. There is no other article on a subject that could be called simply Vivekanada (though there are articles on Vivekananda Road, Vivekananda High School, etc.) LeadSongDog come howl! 06:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I have very long ago given up talking decently with people of a kind. So that's a useless advice for me. But you are now getting on point. You have two articles of your against some 112 proper nouns of mine. Buck up! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That a long list of Wikipedia articles make the same mistake is not relevant, and certainly does not establish that mistake as correct. WP:OTHERSTUFF explains.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @LeadSongDog: (edit conflict) the example you have given— President William Jefferson Clinton — here a) "President" is the rank, similar to Indian monk Swami Vivekananda or Monk Swami Vivekananda. But no one ever says to include "Monk" or "Indian monk" in the name. Now b) William Jefferson Clinton — that was his birthname, he was mostly known/called as "Bill Clinton" —so here "Swami Vivekananda" is applicable. Swami Vivekananda's birthname was "Narndrnath Datta" (like William Jefferson Clinton for Clinton). No one never asks to make it the article title — because that is not common name either. Did you know, Swami Vivekananda used/had few/many more names in his life — Swami Vivekananda was the most common one.
    In addition I am surprised to see the "support" comments here. I can ignore some comments as "unprepared" or "biased", but your posts are making me sad. Look generally everyone write in this format—

    Tito Dutta is an editor at English language Wikipedia. He joined Wikipedia in early 2011. Currently Tito is an autoconfirmed etc et...

    That means, they start with full name and use he/surname/first name in writing (eg. William Shakespeare>>Shakespeare, Barack Obama>>Obama). The support votes which have been given here are mostly based on this statement. I clearly showed the Google Books link mentioned above — there only firsr few links are relevant, but when you search with "Swami Vivekananda" you get 15—20 pages full of relevant results. I request you to assess your comment and please change vote Tito☸Dutta 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: Happy to enlighten you again. The list below is not of wikipedia articles. That's a list of proper nouns. The list of stuff that is named as "Swami Vivekanada", the stuff which have been named by numerous people involved, government officials, authors and publishers of numerous books, organizers of various movements, film's producers/directors, educational institutes, etc. The list doesn't include articles that WP editors have named like Swami Vivekananda in California. These n-number of people deciding to name books, airports, roads, films, colleges, etc. as "Swami Vivekananda" says what COMMONNAME is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is one more confusion — "Vivekananda" is not the only common name/spelling. There is at least two—three more spellings, for example the airport mentioned by Dharmadhyaksha, that is "Vivekanand" airport. So, we use the most common name and spelling Swami Vivekananda. --Tito☸Dutta 16:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Some stuff supporting "Swami" as part of his common name. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sr. No. Stuff with "Swami Vivekananda" in their title
1 Swami Vivekananda Airport
2 Swami Vivekananda Road metro station
3 Swami Vivekananda (film)
4 Swami Vivekananda (1955 film)
5 The Light: Swami Vivekananda
6 Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India
7 Swami Vivekananda statue (Golpark, Kolkata)
8 Swami Vivekananda on Himself
9 Swami Vivekananda in the West: New Discoveries
10 Ramakrishna Mission Swami Vivekananda's Ancestral House and Cultural Centre
11-96 Bibliography_of_Swami_Vivekananda#S
97 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology
98 Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement
99 Swami Vivekananda Youth Employment Week
100 Notes of some wanderings with the Swami Vivekananda
101 Swami Vivekanand Road, Mumbai
102 Swami Vivekanand Bridge
103 Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement (SVYM)
104 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University
105 Swami Vivekanand College of Distance Education [6]
106 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Management & Computer Science, Kolkatta [7]
107 Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes [8]
108 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sagar, MP [9]
109 Swami Vivekanand College of Engineering, Bhopal [10]
110 Swami Vivekanand Polytechnic College, Yamunanagar [11]
111 Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut [12]
112 Swami Vivekanand Way, Chicago [13]
  • The list is longer. We provide such a long list everytime. Who cares? --Tito☸Dutta 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Tito's arguments earlier. Sohambanerjee1998 18:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad, not Hazarat Muhammad and Lalon, not Fakir Lalon. - Rahat | Message 06:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your examples could be considered if you could prove that Bangabandhu, Hazarat and Fakir are part of the common name and despite that we have our article titles on something else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 4 November 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

review of this requested move

Citation issues

There seem to be quite a few citation issues lurking. Eg: Dalal 2011, p. 465 is presently footnote 202 but there is no "Dalal" in the Bibliography (there are also books in the biblio that are not cited). I've no idea how long these have been around because I know there was a lot of work done for the recent GA. Has anyone with sufficient source familiarity tried running Ucucha's script on the article? - it highlights the problems. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

The location for Swami Vivekanada is shown as Pimpri. But Swamiji has nothing to do with the city of Pimpri. As per the details on his page, he came from Calcutta. So, please either delete the reference of Swami Vivekanada to Pimpri, or change it to Culcatta (Kolkata).

Thanks 75.18.187.157 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I can not find the word "Pimpri" using browser's find option. Please mention exact paragraph/section. --Tito☸Dutta 01:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I also don't see this reference anywhere in the article. Please feel free to reopen this request and be more specific. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved?!

Wow, I see Swami Vivekananda was moved to "Vivekananda". Wow. This kind of stuff is why I gave up on editing at Wikipedia. People enforcing rules to the disregard of common sense. Following the letter not the spirit of the law. Well, such is the inscrutable will of the Mother. Goodbye again to Wikipedia. Devadaru (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • @Devadaru: Me too. See the discussion above. I requested move review too. It was a wrong and very unfortunate decision. Tito☸Dutta 08:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Really unfortunate, Tito and Dharmadhyaksha you guys are doing great job. I feel that another move would have been a better idea than a review. -sarvajna (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sarvajna: Here you need to create an article and keep on shepherding it. I'll also add a "no, no, no" message in my talk page (see Dharmadhaksya's talk page's "no, no, no" message)--Tito☸Dutta 12:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not quite understand why you write that, in any case my intention was not to burden you guys. It was just a plain and simple recognition of your efforts, I could have done that by awarding barnstarts but I feel that they are meaningless. Thank you. -sarvajna (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sarvajna: No, it was not targeted at you. I meant, other than expanding or creating articles here you may need to spend some time in discussing and debating. --Tito☸Dutta 13:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification, I can try to get involved in the discussion on this page(I am considering retirement and I was on a long wiki break while this was moved. I was part of previous 2 discussions of Gandhi page though :-) ). -sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many subsections

I have a feeling this third tier headings (under the subsection With Ramakrishna) are not needed. Some of those sub-subsection are quite small. Moreover, not every information available needs to be in the article. Summary form is what is really encouraged. The sub-subsection on Pavhari baba also does not need a separate heading. What do you think? --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have combined several two. Miniapolis 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem still persists. Merged some. Regular editors need to check for merge of sections in 1st and 2nd sections. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Swami Vivekananda/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall be pleased to review this interesting and well-written article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for starting the review --Tito☸Dutta 07:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for promoting it to GA.--Nvvchar. 10:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • Monastic vows: would be nice to know what the name Vivekananda means. Ananda = bliss; Viveka = wisdom, apparently.
  • The Swami himself explained the meaning of his name, ‘Viveka’ meaning “perception” in this reference [14] and 'Ananda' means “bliss” or “joy” as per this [[15] and his guru named him as Vivekananda. If this expatiation is adequate then I will add it in the text.--Nvvchar. 08:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. Tito☸Dutta 09:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As a child he was restless, but "played by meditating"? Perhaps "played at meditating"?
  • Fixed--Nvvchar. 08:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Education: Herbert Spencer is named in list, then discussed in next sentence. Could omit from list, link in sentence about him?
  •  Done Tito☸Dutta 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yogi's eyes. Might be useful to link this.
  • Yogi has been linked--Nvvchar. 08:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 1st visit to Ramakrishna not considered first meeting: why not? Seems surprising: does the source explain this?
  • In November 1881 Vivekananda met Ramakrishna in Surendranath Mitra's house in Kolkata. There Ramakrishna invited him to Dakshineswar. We had details in version. Now, after recent edits, I can see details of that portion. See the older version, if you want I can re-add content from there. Tito☸Dutta 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added content from older version. Tito☸Dutta 08:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems to have had a big influence on Christopher Isherwood. Should he be mentioned (beyond having a book cited) in Influence and legacy?
  • North: quoted a Persian poem: in the original? (Did V. speak Persian like his father?)
  • Source does not mention it. Tito☸Dutta 08:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • He visited Nainital, ... Maybe "He visited the sacred sites of Nainital, ..." if that's the intended meaning. Would a map marked with these places be helpful here? Same goes for other travels.
  • Fixed.
  • Photos: did monks often have photos taken - it seems noteworthy?
  • Any photo of Vivekananda's childhood or early life has not been found. The first available photo was taken in 1887. Between 1886—1894, some 10 or so photos of Vivekananda are found. But, from the year 1893, when he visited the West, we have many images of Vivekananda of every year (mainly between 1893—1900). You may see commons:Swami Vivekananda. Yes, some of those photos are noteworthy. Tito☸Dutta 07:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • West: "with learned pandits". Gloss or wikilink.
  • Done. Wikilinked Tito☸Dutta 07:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • South: stayed with the Maharaja. Why would the Maharaja entertain a monk? There's something missing here. Presumably his fame was growing but the article doesn't indicate this. By the last paragraph he has "some of his most devoted disciples" but we haven't really heard anything about a following up to heere.
  • I meant: South: "stayed at the palace as a guest of Maharaja of Mysore Chamaraja Wodeyar." You have answered many small queries but not one large one, which is, how? I guess this is the mystery of fame, but somehow a wandering monk has travelled about and within a few years is being entertained at a Maharaja's palace, without explanation or comment. All the words like "notable" and "historic" can be included or crossed out, but the central mystery has not been touched upon. How did the Maharaja get to hear about him? Was it all word of mouth, was V. in the newspapers? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Seshadri Iyer, who was an employee at the King's court, introduced Vivekananda to the king, I have added details. --Tito☸Dutta 09:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Will this explanation be adequate to his popularity which is attributed to two aspects as explained in this reference [16] pages 125-128. a)They were impressed by the amazing sweep and depth of his knowledge and the illumination of his spirit and his easy grace.of kingly manners and b) A sanayasin speaking English with full command was an astonishment.and his presentation of Vedanata meaning as the living Vedanta as “love” presented with quivering deep feeling touched every one? --Nvvchar. 09:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The facts just need to be stated simply with as few adjectives ('amazing', 'kingly', 'easy') as possible to maintain a neutral tone; direct, cited quotes can of course include such things. The issue was how they met and how the knowledge of his qualities spread, which is pretty much handled now, but the fact of his speaking English is certainly relevant, as is the effect of his knowledge and manners. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • First visit: "historic": why? The reader doesn't know this yet. Are we assuming readers already know the story?
  • Removed the word "historic" Tito☸Dutta 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Parliament: brevity of his speech: presumably it was more than just these quotes.
  • Great Orator: lower case, probably.
  • Done, changed to "an orator" Tito☸Dutta 07:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • texts to English: in English?
  • Fixed
  • Swmaiji - should be Swamiji, or just 'the Swami' as honorifics are generally deprecated here. Check other occurrences.
  • Fixed
  • We are twice told he influenced/inspired Bose and Tilak (Colombo to Almora and Influence and legacy).
  • Removed from Colombo to Almora
  • "V. is seen as a role model ..." - was seen in 2009, actually. Please provide date.
This has been removed, but was cited. Perhaps a quote with the ref would suit the article here.

GA Table

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. ok
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead - ok, though it contains 10 refs - should not be necessary if these are also in article. layout ok; weasel: generally ok, slight use of honorifics. fiction: n/a; lists: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. excellent.
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). excellent.
2c. it contains no original research. ok
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments. All the main aspects are now satisfactorily covered. This article was formerly at FA and it would be good to see it with that status again, for which it will require more attention to flow and to detail.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Probably. There is a pressure in such articles to give a lot of detail of key devotional moments without necessarily explaining why these are important.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article certainly tries hard to be even in tone.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I think so. There's a steady amount of chatter but the article's shape hasn't changed much lately.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are from Commons and are tagged.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. well-chosen.
7. Overall assessment. This interesting article on a major subject in the transmission of Hindu thought to the West is now well up to GA standard.
  • Thank you very much for the review. Tito☸Dutta 09:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello..I have read in one biography that Vivekananda itself predicted that someone much like a modern version of a yogi which has a very similar name as his will one day speak about the unity of all worldy religions at the world parliment of religions? Please include?i dont remember the publishers name or anything of that sort..Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.140.33.87 (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Swami

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vivekananda

You reverted, reintroducing "Swami". You should be aware that this has previously discussed here in regards the move which corrected the article title. Please reconsider. An edit war would not be productive. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog No consensus to change "swami", in fact a new page move may better decide. How come page moves are establishing consensus for content? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Where's the discussion? The linked page only says "the closure was within "the closing admin's discretion"". That's quite different from a "discussion". And the closure was about the page-name, not the name by which (Swami) Vivekananda is known. From WP:BOLDTITLE:
"Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold: "Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra.""
The use of the term "Swami" is not restricted to his followers, but is also being used by academics, for example William Radice (1998), "Swami Vivekananda and the modernization of Hinduism", Oxford University Press.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Titodutta are you still interested in new page move? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: To read a closed-and-folded discussion, you'll need to click on the "show" at the right of the closure comment. We've been over the same issue many times. wp:AT is the policy on article titles, with five (not just one) WP:CRITERIA for consideration when comparing possible article titles. It directs further attention to specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) and it in turn to the even more specific wp:NCINDIC. The MOS page only serves to clarify their application. Similar discussions apply to clerics as to nobility. Membership in a group, dynastic succession, apostolic succession, rank structure, etc is widely accompanied by honourifics and similar prefixes that Wikipedia seeks to avoid, if only because many of them are confusing to our readers. We want one article title irrespective of all the different personal titles, honourifics, forms of address and such that are used over the course of a lifetime. We seek the least possible POV in the selection of an article title unless this will create unreasonable confusion. If there was an article about another similarly-prominent person with the name Vivekananda we might call this article Swami Vivekananda or Vivekananda (swami), but as that is not the case, there is no need to disambiguate and those are simply redirects. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed the "Show"-link. I understand the rationale for the page-title without "Swami", and I have no intention whatsoever to reopen that discussion. So that's not the point. The point is that Vivekananda is also knwon, better known, as Swami Vivekanada. So, that should be mentioned, shouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
That version seems like a reasonable compromise, in line with the common practice of "also known as" statements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 October 2014
  • Ya, you may start a new move request, I have got a fever currently, I may need 24 hours' or so bed rest. :( --Tito☸Dutta 19:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Ho, I won't. I don't want to move the page, I kust want "Swami" to be mentioned. The first line of the lead is fine place to do so; the title of the page is another issue. Beterschap, by the way. Off to bed! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Consensus indicates that in this case swami is not used as an honorific.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Vivekananda → Swami Vivekananda – Swami is not really an honorific term. Within the mainstream scholarship and literature, he is usually referred as Swami Vivekananda. It was the original title of the article as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support That is not exactly an honorific in this case. He is commonly referred-to/known-as Swami Vivekananda. A google search[17] for the exact phrase "Swami Vivekananda" returned about 52,90,000 results. Two randomly picked references: Tweed, Thomas (1999). Asian religions in America : a documentary history. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 0-19-511338-1., Barnes, Michael (2002). Theology and the dialogue of religions. Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 160. ISBN 0-521-00908-1. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there an article on some other more prominent person named Vivekananda? Whether a prefix or suffix is an honorific, a job description, a form of address, or just some other adjective, we try to avoid making it part of an article title per the policy, wp:AT. Why should this article be a special case? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible SUPPORT ever: AmritasyaPutra, don't waste time in collecting references. These people never read. Last time I told everything I could say. They neither did or could reply anything (or most of the points), see my and Dharmadhakshya's post, the table created by Dharmadhakshya, references etc. No one replied anything, but the article was "moved".
    All our hour-long studies went in vein. LeadSongDog just doesn't understand things, after moving this article, he moved a bunch of other articles without caring to start any RM.
    Everywhere he is called "Swami Vivekananda". It is a clear case of common name. That's how he is known.
    PS: I am tired to repeat points again and again. Please refer to our last studies and the stats we presented. --Tito☸Dutta 07:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reviewing all the Swami article titles with and without redirects seems to show that Swami is generally not used but there is no real logical consistency in my view on the matter. No real opinion either way, but helpful I hope. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, they moved all articles. We are talking about common name. --Tito☸Dutta 07:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that Swami is not really an honorific term. As far I know, some people of south India has "Swami" in there birth name but in this case it is different, no one can find a source which states that in the name "Swami Vivekananda", "Swami" is not a honorific. Wide use of "Swami Vivekananda" in reliable sources doesn't necessarily mean that "Swami" is not a honorific although one can prove that in India "Swami" is used as honorific For example:Swami Ramdev . But I support this move because in this case honorific is so commonly attached to the name that it is rarely found in English reliable sources without the honorific. For example: Mother Teresa, While it is known that "Mother" is commonly used as a honorific, since the majority of the sources says her "Mother Teresa" so article with that title is not something unbelievable. Jim Carter 16:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Since some of you seem determined not to do your reading, I will explain (once again) that COMMONNAME is only one of five criteria applied at wp:AT. It does not outweigh the others. Since most or all members of elites or other select groups (whether that is the swami order, or the List of Ayatollahs, or the List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow) tend to adopt a common identifying adjective for members of the group. We use those adjectives in redirects, but we keep the primary article title as wp:CONCISE as practical, just in case someone can't remember or just doesn't know how to spell or where to place the extra verbiage (Swami or Svami or Swamiji or Srisriswamiji or Shri Shri Swamiji or whatever). Add all the redirects you think are necessary, and nobody will mind. We simply don't put all that in the main title of the article without a strong reason to do so. Most of the articles that still have such titles are in error, and should be corrected. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Your mentioned "some of you" ("us") have already studied these things. Therefore, you please do some sturdy now. You are mentioning WP:AT page, there in the first section, they mention "Naturalness". "Swami Vivekananda" is the "natural" and "common" name.
    I have seen your works in other articles. You are "definitely" doing it on good faith, but I am unable to understand, where it is going wrong!!
    Him has given a wonderful example of Mother Teresa. --Tito☸Dutta 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and talking about how people spell Swami or add extra verbiage is a red herring: this particular person is most often known by "Swami Vivekananda" in English. —innotata 10:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question -- Would an equivalent to this be something like Mahatma Gandhi, where Mahātmā is an honorific title but is still overwhelmingly used as though it is the subject's common name?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Mahatma Gandhi is the subject's common name, yes. Yes, I think this discussion is equivalent to keeping "Mahatama Gandhi" as article title instead of "Gandhi".--AmritasyaPutraT 05:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Yaksar: Yes, it is equivalent. That is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is widely recognized by the name Mahatma Gandhi. In the same way, Vivekananda is widely recognized as Swami Vivekananda. As already noted. Clear case of COMMONNAME. Jim Carter 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the above piling-on is not leading to any new insight. Once again, the policy is wp:AT. It has five criteria, not just one. Endless repetition about wp:COMMONNAME while ignoring wp:PRECISION and the others is not in the least bit convincing. The policy, together with wp:Naming_conventions_(clergy) and wp:NCIN make it obvious that the reason for special cases has to be strong. Teresa is far too ambiguous, so the added "Mother" makes it sufficiently wp:PRECISE. There are articles on various other Ghandis, such as Indira Ghandi, so even though Mahatma Ghandi was and still is very COMMONly referred to (worldwide) simply as "Ghandi", we redirect that and use the more precise article title in his case. We don't use two words when one will do, but when one won't do, we add the minimum necessary to serve the purpose. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But these cases are not exactly the same. The reason that we have mother Teresa at it's current title has nothing to do with the fact that she is not the primary topic for Teresa. Even if she was, the current title would remain her overwhelmingly common name. As it stands, following the honorific guidelines to the letter we should have her at something like Teresa (catholic figure), but we all agree that the current one is instead best. Gandhi is also a different case -- we don't have his name as not simply Gandhi because he's not necessarily the primary topic over other Gandhi's -- the term does, after all, redirect right to him.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you dispute that he is better known as "Swami Vivekananda"? If the name was not precise enough that would be a problem, but why is it so horrible to use two-word names that are "too" precise? Can you elaborate on why (and where) the policy says that? —innotata 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
So you haven't bothered to even read the first line of wp:PRECISE before asking? Please, earn the good faith being shown and do the necessary work.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I had already read it, it doesn't say must always, it says usually. I still don't understand why this should override using commonly recognised names. That is, I don't see any reason apart from "it is policy", and the policy only talks about what is usually done. —innotata 05:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose People are misunderstanding COMMONNAME and ignoring PRECISE etc. Even in the examples at COMMONNAME we say "... the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability". Unless there are a multitude of Vivekanandas, the Swami is redundant. We don't habitually do it for kings, popes etc etc and there is no need habitually to do it for Indian religious figures. - Sitush (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • People are misunderstanding COMMONNAME. . . Not exactly. Explaining a bit later in this reply. Unless there are a multitude of Vivekanandas — Please note, we are not asking to add "Swami" to disambiguate. That's how he is "known".
    In 1893, when he got the name (note:I edit this site), he was named "Swami Vivekananda", and not Vivekananda. And from then he is known by that name. He introduced the word "Swami" to the West. Few newspapers at that time wrote their reports with "Swami came, Swami said, Swami did. . " etc. format, thinking "Swami" was his first name. --Tito☸Dutta 05:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It is certainly how he is known to some but it is far from being the style by which he is referred to by all. Even the webpage that you link more often than not uses "Vivekananda" without the "Swami". Like it or not, Swami is an honorific. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that is known to and used by most of writers, newspapers etc.. Even in Chicago, they named a road Swami Vivekananda Way or Avenue. When Barack Obama visited India, he referred the monk as "the renowned Swami Vivekananda" with audio. Please refer the stats presented in the last RM, or clearly tell me, what type of reference I should present here? Would you be happy If I once again present 5-6 different Government's websites, or his own signatures, or mentions in the best newspapers in India/anywhere? What I told in the last few RMs and at move review too, "Swami" may be an honorific. BUT, when for Swami Vivekananda, it is a part of the name we use and what he is commonly called.
    LeadSongDog, Sitush, please tell me clearly, that, "Tito, show us this and this source" and I'll try to collect mentioned documents. --Tito☸Dutta 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is pretty pointless just referring to evidence presented at the last RM. Tito. Unless you feel that RM was improperly closed. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As for naming of roads etc, well, there are horse races etc named after monarchs - King George V Stakes etc - but that doesn't meant we use "King" in the title of the article for the monarch. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
That's correct Sitush. Further it is preposterous to contend that the monarch takes "King" or "Queen" as a forename, it's a title or a form of reference. "The King" or "the Swami" or "the Mayor" are personal titles/honorifics/reference styles, but our articles belong at George VI the king, Vivekananda the swami or former New York mayor Ed Koch.

LeadSongDog come howl! 17:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Just use common sense, if people here start calling any of us "Sir XX" then will we change our signature "XX" to "Sir XX"? I hope no because it is a honorific. We will certainly not call ourself "Sir XX". In the same way, Swami Vivekananda or Vivekananda will obviously not add "Swami" in his signature if it is a honorific but there are evidence that he used "Swami" in his signature which implies that "Swami" is not a honorific in this case. Jim Carter 10:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Your examples are not correct. Both the cases are different. For example: Sources says that Catherine de' Medici was the Queen of France. But in this case, no sources says that Vivekananda was a Swami but sources says "Swami Vivekananda" not "Vivekananda, the Swami". Jim Carter 15:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Certainly latter-day devotees (who have put out most of the publications about him through the Math or other related groups) have tilted the field, but when one looks at independent publications, things change a bit. For example here one sees "by the Swami Vivekananda", or here one sees "Vivekananda's influence on Subhas". Sometimes even within the walled garden one finds works such as "Śrī Vivekānanda karma yoga sūtra śatakam = Hundred aphorisms on karma yoga based on Vivekananda" OCLC 6903434. Here, we see an announcement by the Vedanta Society of a series of "lectures by the Swami Vivekanada". LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
      • No. latter-day devotees (who have put out most of the publications about him through the Math or other related groups) have tilted the field - It is possible that publications from Advaita Ashrama may use that title but other independent publishers like - Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press have also used "Swami". The so called non independent publishers have also used "Vivekananda" in there books while the title of the book mentions the subject as "Swami Vivekananda". For example: In the book, A Short Life of Swami Vivekananda, published by Advaita Ashrama, author: Tejasananda, ISBN 978-81-7505-030-33 mentioned the subject as "Vivekananda" in page 55 but in the same book the author has mentioned the subject as "Swami Vivekananda" multiple times in pages=77, 111 and 118. Independent Bengali language publishers like "Value Orientation publishers" has also mentioned him as "Swami Vivekananda" see যুব নায়ক িবেবকান 1st edition 1995 ISBN 81-85843-69-4 (in Bengali), the title of the book mention the subject as "Vivekananda" but the pages -৩ to ৫১ (3-51) is full of "Swami Vivekananda" mentions. For example: Abhishek Bachchan is sometime also mentioned by independent sources as "Bachchan" or "Jr. Bachchan" does that mean we should move the article to Bachchan? Obviously no. In the same way authors sometime mentions "Swami Vivekananda" as "Vivekananda" in there books. Here in this image the subject has included "Swami" in his signature which proves that "Swami" in this case is not honorific. The above mentioned image is the most reliable source here because the subject himself confirms there name as "Swami Vivekananda". And yes that image can be used as a source. Jim Carter 11:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
        • read this and you'll see that during his lifetime the authorized texts referred to "The Swami" and "The Swami Vivekananda". Recent publications can't be trusted, they've been revised. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It will be of no help. Bringing sources will be of no help here. I can bring hundreds of such sources which says "Swami Vivekananda" and not "The Swami Vivekananda". We can never reach consensus like this. Publications prior 1940s also mention the subject as "Swami Vivekananda". And the most prominent source here is the signed image above. The subject confirmed their name is "Swami Vivekananda". @LeadSongDog you have to understand my viewpoint. It appears that you are ignoring any evidence that is countering your point of view. Please read this. Thanks! Jim Carter 11:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments raised at last RM, mostly that Swami is an honorific. Yes, "Swami" is probably the common name, I'm not contesting the sources, but it should still be omitted by Wikipedia's no-honorifics policy, it's a bit of a slippery slope (include PBUH's in Muhammad's article?! I was also in favor of moving "Saint Joseph" to "Joseph of Nazareth", although that move failed...) SnowFire (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Swami Ji On Jainism

“What could have saved Indian society from the ponderous burden of omniferous ritualistic ceremonialism, with its animal and other sacrifices, which all but crushed the very life of it, except the Jain revolution which took its strong stand exclusively on chaste morals and philosophical truths? Jains were the first great ascetics and they did some great work. ‘Don’t injure any and do good to all that you can, and that is all the morality and ethics, and that is all the work there is, and the rest is all nonsense-the Brahmins created that. Throw it all away.’ And then they went to work and elaborated this one principle all through, and it is most wonderful ideal: how all that we call ethics they simply bring out from that one great principle of non-injury and doing good.” (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by जैन (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

They are unreliable citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@जैन: can you provide page number with edition so that we may check? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 10:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The complete works of Swami Vivekananda (Volume 3) Official Pages-

जैन (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello, in addition to what Bladesmulti and AmritasyaPutra have said, in this article we are not really writing Swami Vivekananda's views on other religions, philosophies etc.. You may try it in Teachings and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda (but that article too is not well-developed at this moment). Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 10:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. @Titodutta — Preceding unsigned comment added by जैन (talk • contribs) 10:49 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Swami Vivekananda and Modern Indian Spiritual Gurus

I've nominated "Swami Vivekananda and Modern Indian Spiritual Gurus" for deletion; it's unsourced, and doubles this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Balance

A large part of his article is devoted to Vivekananda's travels, while only a marginal section informs us on his ideas. Shouldn't the travel-part be split-off? I think it's hardly interesting for the average reader... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the Indian travels to Swami Vivekananda's travels in India (1888–1893). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It was a great work. (missed this section somehow) --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

Bengali itself is not a nationality. --Tito☸Dutta 21:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why Bengali doesn't qualify to be a nationality. And also how he could be an Indian given India became independent in 1947? If you are considering anyone who was born before 1947 with in the border of modern day Republic of India was an Indian, does it mean Rudyard Kipling also was an Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoshanko (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Kipling aside, Bengal or Bengali is not a country (was not at the time of British Raj), so how that can be a nationality. Are you confused between ethnicity and nationality ? Kipling's nationality was Indian or British is a different matter and should be discussed at the relevant talk page. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually nationality can be used as a synonym of ethnicity according to most dictionaries. One of the definition of nationality is " An ethnic group of people forming a part of one or more political nation". Given Swami Vivek belonged to a very distinct ethnic Bengali group in Bengal which was part of a Colonial political entity named British Raj, I think his Bengali nationality is more accurate.

In this instance, even if we do not want to consider his ethnicity as his nationality, should his nationality not be British given he was born in a British political/colonial entity named British Raj?

And also, how can we justify his nationality as Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoshanko (talk • contribs) 09:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually nationality can be used as a synonym of ethnicity according to most dictionaries — there is NO consensus on it here on Wikipedia, go and try to get one. Don't know about your unnamed dictionaries, reading the first line of Wikipedia article Nationality Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. Who calls M. K. Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak a Gujarati or Marathi freedom fighter? --Tito☸Dutta 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

So far we have not any come up with any strong argument in favour of his nationality as Indian.

If Bengali can't be his nationality on the basis that Bengal was not an independent country then he can not be an indian either. India became a country in 1947 which was long before he died.

You are bringing up Gandhi's nationality as an example to back your claim. But you are not interested to take Kipling's nationality argument into consideration. Do you not see this as double standard at all? Shoshanko (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking he was a British. Wasn't he? Shoshanko (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Death

Folks, what is with the nonsense posted under the Death section?

Can you please review and remove it? Vivekananda was not a medieval or ancient personality - whose account is more hagiographical than biographical. He died in the 20th Century and such fabled accounts for a modern personality are inappropriate.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.191.131 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

proselytizing views of the Arya Samaj

Is there any info on Vivekenanda's views on proselytizing? The Vedas probably do not mention proselytizing in the context of making the Vedas available to other cultures than to the then inhabitants of the Indus Valley and those related to these inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Vivekananda went to the west to raise money for his charity-work in India, as far as I know. His succes in the west was much greater than expected, so he shifted his focus. Kind of proselytizing, I uess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"brothers and sisters", "sisters and brothers", or something else

In Swami Vivekananda, it says that a famous speech started “brothers and sisters of America”.

In Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of the World's Religions (1893), it says that a famous speech started “sisters and brothers of America”.

this site says neither is correct. I hope someone can do a little research and figure out how these two article should read.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My american brothers and sisters Ayan93 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

117.214.138.195 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)SWAMI IS BELONH KSHATRIYA CASTE.SOURCE -SANSKRTI KE CHAR ADHYAYA BY RAMDHARI SINGH DINKER

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

223.191.1.82 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

Pavitra22 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Vivekananda is also called as “The Great Indian Monk“. Swami Vivekananda Quotes make any human to feel enthusiastic, vibrant and active to succeed in his life.

 Not done This site you added above is not a reliable site, I am unable to find any such reference on Google "The+Great+Indian+Monk". Also, Vivekananda was not a monk.--DBigXray 22:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Vivekananda was not a monk?" Just google "Vivekananda monk" and you will find hundreds of references - for example here is a page from Berkeley university which says - Swami Vivekananda (12 January 1863 – 4 July 1902), born Narendra Nath Datta, was an Indian Hindu monk - [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.105.226.161 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Qurans challenge

Hey guys how can we know qurans challenge has been met? Amitanshu123 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see wp:TPG. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swami Vivekananda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

Please change "Greenacre" link under "Lecture Tours in the UK and US" to "Green Acre Baha'i School" to 1) more accurately demonstrate Swami Vivekananda's US tour and commitment to interfaith understanding and 2) because Greenacre should not be one word but two. Sharathpatil123 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This change would need editor consensus. See Green Acre Bahá'í School, which provides sources about Vivekananda's visit and about the school. At first, it appears this building was known as the 'Greenacre Inn' and as of 1894 it was not yet calling itself a Baha'i school. There was an article about the lectures in July, 1894 in the Boston Evening Transcript. They use the term 'Greenacre Inn'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura CarteletTalk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2018

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.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus in support of the proposed move at this time. bd2412 T 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda → Vivekananda – MOS:HONORIFICS, MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:CONCISE, WP:OVERDAB. Also for consistency with Ram Charan and Ram Kishor, to which Swamiji Ram Charan and Swamiji Ram Kishor are redirects (respectively). A directly parallel case is Muktananda, to which Swami Muktananda redirects. See also Luigi Guanella and other articles on 20th-century Roman Catholic saits; they are not at Saint Luigi Guanella, etc.; these just exist as redirects. Cf. Alec Guinness, Judi Dench, etc., not Sir Alec Guinness or Dame Judi Dench.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 01:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous move discussions
  • See also Talk:Swami Nithyananda#Requested move 18 July 2018.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name, honorifics per Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi (struck, my mistake, pointed out below) Mahatma Gandhi, and many others. Job titles? The entire name is a job title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    Uh, sorry, but Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is Gandhi's actual birth name; you're thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, which is a redirect – exactly what's proposed in this case. This isn't a WP:COMMONNAME matter; we don't include honorifics. "Vivekananda" is a name (albeit an adopted and evocative one); "Swami" is a title (serving two purposes, depending on the writer). This is not comparable to Mother Teresa, because "Teresa" is a very common name, and moving her article to just Teresa or Teresa (nun) would fail WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and (aside from Saint Teresa of Calcutta among some Catholics) it is the only name by which she is referred to in English. Mother Teresa is a rare exception to MOS:HONORIFICS, not the "rule" to follow, permitted under WP:IAR because there's no reasonable alternative. That is not the case here; Vivekananda already redirects to Swami Vivekananda.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 
    Thanks, that was totally my mistyping (thinking "Mahatma" and typing "Mohandas", probably subconsciously knowing that Gandhi never wanted to be called "Mahatma", and urged people not to do so). Yes, Mother Teresa is the subject's common name and should be used, for the reasons you point out. I'm just saying that "Swami Vivekananda" is the subject's most common and recognizable name in English as well, even though, as you point out below, there are exceptions. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    Mahatma Gandhi is not a redirect. Ankit (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Umm No Mahatma Gandhi is not a redirect , It is the actual title of the article. Infact Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is a redirect . Please dont confuse other editors with false information. Razer(talk) 19:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Some additional background:
    An organisation venerating him (Vivekenanda Foundation) just calls him "Vivekananda", including when quoting him. [18]. "Swami foo" is an honorific when used toward a person; in Western vernacular use it's an occupational term like guru; these words are used differently in India among Hindus and carry more specific meanings. These are not the meanings used in the US/British/etc. press (which tend to use them interchangeably).
    News sources: "Vivekananda's kathak link unveiled in video", The Times of India [19]. "Uttarakhand governor K K Paul said that the government should focus on developing a Vivekananda [tour] circuit here considering the bond the revered leader shared with the Himalayan state." The Times of India [20]. "Cigar-Smoking Monk Vivekananda Still Relevant 116 Yrs After Death", The Quint (Bloomberg News) [21]. "Vivekananda originally came to the United States to seek funds to relieve poverty in India.", Religion News Service [22] "What Connects Vivekananda and Jamsetji Tata? A Sea Voyage That Changed India", The Better India [23]
    Books: Vivekananda, World Teacher: His Teachings on the Spiritual Unity of Humankind [24]. Vivekananda Reader [25]. Vivekananda: A Biography (by someone who calls himself Swami Nikhilananda!) [26]. Vivekananda: The Yogas and Other Works [27]. "Pathways to Joy: The Master Vivekananda on the Four Yoga Paths to God" [28]. Living at the Source: Yoga Teachings of Vivekananda [29]
    The only other two people who show up under this name in the news are a local politician and a chess player, and in both cases they are surnames, and our articles on them (if they were notable) would use their full names. No disambiguation is served by prefixing "Swami".
    Various institutions are named after him, with no "Swami": Vivekenandra Kendra NRL School of Nursing, Vivekenanda College, Vivekenandra Vedanta Society, Vivekenandra Home, Vivekenandra Youth Club, Mysore Vivekananda Yoga Education & Research Institute, etc., etc.
Clearly, the "Swami" part is not consistently included when referring to him. Publications by Hindus are apt to call him "Swami Vivekananda" for the same reason that Roman Catholic works will refer to Luigi Guanella as Saint Luigi Guanella or Saint Luigi, and British press are apt to prefix Sir, Dame, Lord, etc. But even Hindu publishers don't use "Swami" consistently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Were those sources identified by looking for all sources that refer to him, or by preferentially looking for sources that call him "Vivekananda"? Accesscrawl (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Swami Vivekananda Airport, Swami Vivekananda Bridge, Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology, Swami Vivekanand Road (Mumbai), etc. can also be evidence of the present name being the common and most recognizable name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Don't see any change in the results of the usage of the terms since the last page move request. "Swami" is not honorific here. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    Of course it is. Honorific and occupational description are the only functions served by that word in such a construction. Please actually read Swami. This is not in any way different from moving something from "Sir Foo Bar" to "Foo Bar" or "Professor Baz Quux" to "Baz Quux".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME, only vivekananda would simply miss lead the readers or people who is actually looking for this page. and it is not a job title nor does the peronnels mentioned in comparisions are not as widely known as Swami Vivekananda Shrikanthv (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is not the commonname in neutral material. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since the last page move. Swami here is WP:COMMONNAME, like Mahatma Gandhi. Ankit (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'Swami' is a part of his name just like 'Mother' in Mother Teresa and 'Mahatma' in Mahatma Gandhi. Mother Teresa was not her real name but she is known as Mother Teresa. Similarly he was known as Swami Vivekananda, not just Vivekananda in stand-alone isolation. His real name was Narendra before he attained fame as Swami Vivekananda.Rao Ravindra (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME. Do you have sources that mostly depend on referring him as "Vivekananda" while not or completely omitting "Swami"? This could be honorific but not in this case. Mahatma Gandhi is not a redirect either. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME. Even Amazon.com (in the author names of books written or co-authored by him) refers to him as Swami Vivekananda. His real name was Narendranath Datta. Almost no source refers to him by that name. Very few sources use Vivekananda(only). If he were called Swami Datta or Swami Narendranath, then someone could have argued that it was a honorific added to his name. But this name: "Swami Vivekananda" is his common name. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 6,04,000 results on books.google.com shows this is a common name. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The close here does not look like it will be difficult at this point, but the closer should probably check for evidence of socking. The previous discussion was proposed by and supported by well-established sock puppets with thousands of edits. Dekimasuよ! 17:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: There were 7 support and 2 oppose for the last page move discussion. The proposer of the previous discussion is still active on Wikipedia and one of the supporting editor was blocked for his sockpuppetry after 2 years of the page move. Frankly speaking, it doesn't matters what happened in the previous discussion unless the count of oppose were significant enough to beat the support count. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the proposer (User:Bladesmulti) and the first supporter (User:AmritasyaPutra) of the most recent move request were both blocked about six months later for being sockpuppets of the same editor, here. I did not suggest that the close of the previous discussion was improper. I suggested that this discussion should be handled carefully. Dekimasuよ! 21:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. That's only sensible. Andrewa (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I must admit I am not the left sock of OccultZone, which has the word "Swami" embroidered on it, but I'm not sure about his or her right sock, embroidered with "ji" (or is it "Joe"?). I hope this helps. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: Your are still having misunderstanding. Let me be crystal-clear that Bladesmulti was blocked months after the page move but he is still an active editor on Wikipedia. AmritasyaPutra was unblocked for the mistaken block you are referring, because he was not a sock. Even his userpage[30] has no sock tags. He was blocked for "after 2 years of the page move" - how come you have missed this comment above? The result of the previous discussion was WP:SNOW and so would be this one because of very obvious reasons.
  • @Andrewa: Lol. Read WP:NOTFISHING. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have just (re)read that. It doesn't say anything that would lead me to reconsider or withdraw my comment above, or my support for the move. Agree that closer should follow the instructions for requesting checkuser if they think this might be helpful (but I didn't think that needed saying). I also note your point above that even then, we get it wrong sometimes. We all do our best! Not one for the fainthearted or inexperienced. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not really seeming to be productive. I left a note to the closer to keep in mind that this topic has attracted sock participation in the past. I didn't ask anyone to checkuser all the participants. AmritasyaPutra was subsequently reblocked when the account was again determined to be a sock as originally suspected; in any event, AmritasyaPutra admitted to socking. It is true that OccultZone is active, although to the best of my knowledge still topic banned from participating here. And there was another sockmaster who contributed to the previous discussion as well. Thus there were at least three socks/sockmasters that participated in the last discussion, out of nine accounts participating. I tried to leave as neutral a comment as possible to be aware of this, but now we are far from the topic at hand. Dekimasuよ! 19:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • He wasn't "again determined to be a sock", but blocked for his own sockpuppetry which happened 2 years after this page move. I would also like to point out that "even his userpage[31] has no sock tags". Same with other "another sockmaster"(Ricky81682) who's socking had no impact in this discussion and he made no vote in the previous discussion. This is why I said that "it doesn't matters what happened in the previous discussion unless the count of oppose were significant enough to beat the support count," and even now there isn't. If there are any real doubts over any of the accounts here, then one can file an SPI thataway. Thanks! Sdmarathe (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This characterization is not completely accurate. At least three checkusers and another admin expressed renewed concern regarding the relationship between AmritasyaPutra and OccultZone when the reblock took place. However, anyone who wants to judge for themselves can read further at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#15 September 2016. The lack of sock tagging was also discussed there. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The "Swami" is entirely redundant. Virtually all references to "Vivekananda" are to this one person or things named for him. There will still be a redirect, so those searching for "Swami Vivekananda" will still find the right page. wp:COMMON should lose out to wp:CONCISE plus wp:PRECISE plus wp:POVTITLE, they each have equal weight at wp:AT.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." - this is from the naming criteria. Swami Vivekananda is the most natural and recognizable name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There's nothing more natural that the guy's actual name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Swami Vivekananda" is a WP:COMMON name and there is no sufficient doubt against it. Also agree with Randy Kryn that if you were to look for "job title" then for real, their "entire name is a job title". शिव साहिल (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. An unusual case, see #Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Andrewa pointing out the discussion below, will remind editors that the second-largest country of Wikipedia English readers is India. The full title, including 'Swami', is likely the most common and most recognized English name for the subject in India, as well as in other English-speaking countries. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • See my replies below. Andrewa (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I note that while we have Swami Vivekananda (disambiguation) there is currently no Vivekananda (disambiguation); That second is a redlink. This suggests to me that, unusually, in this case the shorter name is actually less ambiguous in English. The DAB has many entries that are only partial matches, but three of them (the person and two films) are exact matches. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a circular discussion point, as every entry at the disambiguation page concerns Swami Vivekananda. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That does not make it circular reasoning. See below. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't checked those disambigs that closely yet, however I note that they don't influence this page move. Sdmarathe (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, obviously. If the shorter name is less ambiguous to English speakers than the longer one, that surely is a point in its favour. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
See my comment above, that this is a circular argument because every entry on the disambiguation page is about Swami Vivekananda. To change the title of this, the main page for the subject, because of that fact, is kind of like throwing out the Swami with the bathwater. And since India is the second largest country of English Wikipedia readers, and in India the full name including 'Swami' would be the most recognizable title for this subject, a move would make the page less recognizable there. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
this is a circular argument because every entry on the disambiguation page is about Swami Vivekananda - No, but that highlights the that Swami Vivekananda and Vivekananda, in English, mean the same thing. There is no circularity; What exactly am I assuming?
To change the title of this, the main page for the subject, because of that fact, is kind of like throwing out the Swami with the bathwater - I respect that this is your opinion, but what is its basis?
And since India is the second largest country of English Wikipedia readers, and in India the full name including 'Swami' would be the most recognizable title for this subject, a move would make the page less recognizable there - We do not add unnecessary disambiguation to article titles. They are supposed to be concise. There's a sense in which Swami Vivekananda, the man largely responsible for introducing Yoga to the Western world would be even more "recognizable" as an article title, but we prefer just Swami Vivekananda as the general reader recognizes this as referring to that particular man. Similarly, we should prefer just Vivekananda if that is enough to identify the article topic, as seems to be the case. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Single name Exceptionally the use of a single name without any other qualifier as article title helps in disambiguation. This is another example of that. Swami Vivekananda is the name of two films, but Vivekananda on its own means the person. As I said above, this is unusual, or as the guideline says, exceptional. But it seems to be the case here. And this is exactly the scenario addressed by that particular sentence in the guideline. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Swami Vivekananda" means the person, or rather, as myself and another editor above point out, the job title. And the guideline you list above asks Wikipedia editors to treat the guideline with common sense, and that occasional exceptions may apply. As good a case for an exception as I've seen. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree that Swami Vivekananda is the job title, but the distinction is irrelevant anyway, and if relevant would support the move, as Vivekananda is also a name for the person.
Yes, all policies, guidelines and naming conventions are to be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. And your opinion that this one is As good a case for an exception as I've seen is relevant. But a bare opinion carries little weight. Why is this an exception? Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me (and at least one other has hinted at this above) that this may be a case of TITLEVAR, and that the shorter name may be more common in the West, but the longer one in India, to which this article has an obvious tie. Is that worth investigating? Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2018 (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.

There's

numerous Harvard errors in the article.

There were only "Michelis" for "De Michelis" among the forward links, which I've fixed. There are some unused "sources" but that's not terribly serious. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I am surprised at the complete lack of criticism; given that his ideologies are widely held as one of the primary precursors of modern day Hindutva politics. ∯WBGconverse 19:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


RfC Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source ?

Article Superstitions in Muslim societies is in process of expansion. Various related issues are under discussion at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

it includes following a related topic to topic of this article.

Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Is_Swami_Vivekananda_a_reliable_source_?

Any one can participate in expansion of Superstitions in Muslim societies and give inputs at various related discussions at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

For information and record

Bookku (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Swami Vivekananda's letter to Swami Swarupananda on Feb the 9th, 1902 (http://www.vivekananda.net/KnownLetters/1902.html) talks about his health condition. This precedes his death which happens 4 months later, so this information is critical and must be included in the Wikipedia article with reference. The exact quote is "I am rather well here, in Varanasi, and if I go on improving in this way, it will be a great gain. A total revolution has occurred in my mind about the relation of Buddhism and Neo-Hinduism. I may not live to work out the glimpses, but I shall leave the lines of work indicated, and you and your brethren will have to work it out." Solomonvimal (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether something is "critical" or not is determined by secondary sources, and not WP:OR of primary source letters. So do you have a secondary source on this? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Can’t find any of Tesla’s own words that gives any proof for the claim that Tesla was influenced by Swami Vivekananda. Almost all source cites a letter BY VIVEKANANDA TO SOMEONE known as E T Sturdy(?); AND NOT ANY DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE TO TESLA. Kak also cites an article titled Man’s Greatest Achievement in which Kak claims that “Tesla wrote about the use of akasha and prana”. Neither the page Nikola Tesla mentions that article nor an online search gives it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ChandlerMinh, I agree. It was sourced to questionable source. I have removed another line on Tesla. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Under the heading Education in the following paraphrase: "...He became fascinated with the evolutionism of Herbert Spencer and corresponded with him,[33][34] translating Herbert Herbert Spencer's book Education (1861) into Bengali.[35] While studying Western philosophers, he also learned Sanskrit scriptures and Bengali literature.[32]..."

The name Herbert Spencer has been misspelt as Herbert Herbert Spencer. Kindly correct this SamyakShirsh (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Good article-status

Why does this article have the GA-status? It's section on "Teachings and philosophy," except for the first three lines, is no more than a collection of quotes and loose statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC) I've added info, and copy-edited the info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Change "leading yoga guru" to "spiritual leader and thinker" 103.51.56.119 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Protect this page

An ongoing attempt is being continued to put Western label on Vivekanada's image by some section of people. Kindly protect this page. Request to Government of India to consider this matter to be important. A user named Joshua Jonathan is involved. Please protect this page.Mikemarssss (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikemarssss: we don't protect pages when editors use WP:RS; we protect pages when editors keep pushing their point of view by removing sourced info, as you are doing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
He is a major figure of Hindu Revivalism in 19th Century. He is credited for the growth of Nationalism in India. His views changed drastically after he met his guru Ramakrishna. Not all of the sourced content can be reliable.Mikemarssss (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RS for the criteria. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The User: Joshua Jonathan is involved in the persistent omission of sources. Notable mentions of what important personalities like Subash Chandra Bose, B.R Ambedkar, C.Rajagopapalachari, Rabindranath Tagore said about Vivekananda was removed from Influence and Legacy section. Please protect this page.Mikemarssss (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Change Nikola Tesla to G. Bonet Maury in captions to the Parliament of religions picture. For reference see same image captions in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_World%27s_Religions Also, in the list of participants Nikola Tesla isn't mentioned anywhere. 117.222.225.35 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done with a cautionary (possibly) per the photo's caption on Commons and use elsewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. on Gaston Bonet-Maury). Thanks for the correction, Wham2001 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"Swami Vividishananda" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swami Vividishananda and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Swami Vividishananda until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Draft:The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Draft:The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Draft:The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts/The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts/The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts/The Life of Swami Vivekananda: by His Eastern and Western Disciples until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Swami Medhananda

@Subhobrata Chakravorti: could you please provide a pagenumber for this addition? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean in which page Swami Medhananda argued about Ramakrishna's influence on Vivekananda more than that of Brahmo Samaj's Influence? In the first chapter itself, from Page Number 17 to 38. The name of the chapter is "The making of an Integral Advaitin: Vivekananda's Intellectual and Spiritual Tutelage under Sri Ramakrishna. Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks; I've already added pagenumbers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate addition

On what basis is a living PM Narender modi added to the being influenced list on the Vivekananda page. There is no books to state this fact he like any other PM of India have payed tribute to him 2A02:C7D:51FF:7100:45AD:4E96:8220:2B5D (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox religious biography has no guidance on this. Similar infoboxes such as Template:Infobox scientist put it at "Unless the later thinker was clearly building on the scientist's work, avoid adding names that were only influenced by study of the scientist, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate." Looks like a good idea to cleanup to that standard and maybe work on the template. Narendra Modi does have citations of "large influence in Modi's life". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://southasia.berkeley.edu/celebrating-vivekananda-about
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_3&oldid=1218066787"