From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Vivekananda has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject India / West Bengal / Tamil Nadu (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (marked as Mid-importance).
This article is supported by the religion workgroup.
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Yoga (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Swami Vivekananda (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swami Vivekananda, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swami Vivekananda on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was last assessed in September 2013.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 August 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

RfC at Swami Kriyananda[edit]

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 at Charles 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  (talkcontributionsemail) 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)

Too many subsections[edit]

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[edit]

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 --TitoDutta 07:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for promoting it to GA.--Nvvchar. 10:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


  • 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 [1] and 'Ananda' means “bliss” or “joy” as per this [[2] 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. TitoDutta 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?
  • Yes check.svg Done TitoDutta 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. TitoDutta 07:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added content from older version. TitoDutta 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. TitoDutta 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. TitoDutta 07:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • West: "with learned pandits". Gloss or wikilink.
  • Done. Wikilinked TitoDutta 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. --TitoDutta 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 [3] 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" TitoDutta 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" TitoDutta 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[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the 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. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. 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 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are from Commons and are tagged.
6b. images 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. TitoDutta 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 (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj influence on Narendra[edit]

@TheMandarin, Dwaipayanc, Nvvchar, 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? --TitoDutta 15:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I do not agree. This reference [4] 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"[edit]

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)

Requested move 4[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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 VivekanandaVivekananda – 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. TitoDutta 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. (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not an honorific here. That's common name. TitoDutta 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" --TitoDutta 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. --TitoDutta 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. TitoDutta 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? TitoDutta 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 TitoDutta 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. --TitoDutta 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 [7]
106 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Management & Computer Science, Kolkatta [8]
107 Swami Vivekananda Group of Institutes [9]
108 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sagar, MP [10]
109 Swami Vivekanand College of Engineering, Bhopal [11]
110 Swami Vivekanand Polytechnic College, Yamunanagar [12]
111 Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut [13]
112 Swami Vivekanand Way, Chicago [14]
  • The list is longer. We provide such a long list everytime. Who cares? --TitoDutta 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[edit]

freedom fighter[edit]

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

Citation issues[edit]

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[edit]

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

  • I can not find the word "Pimpri" using browser's find option. Please mention exact paragraph/section. --TitoDutta 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)


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. TitoDutta 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)--TitoDutta 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. --TitoDutta 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)


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.
  • Ya, you may start a new move request, I have got a fever currently, I may need 24 hours' or so bed rest. :( --TitoDutta 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)