|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ravidas article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
User:GurDass had this to say, "my doubdt is: every Sant Mat Guru received this treatment, the title guru was removed from his name and the article was renamed. So, i think, the same shoud be apply to Ravidas. It does'nt change anything to me but maybe the same way of doing should be apply every time and not make differences." Should the word "Guru" be removed from the page title, since it's not actually part of his name? Also, perhaps this is a good time to talk about whether there's one or two s's in his name -- Ravidas or Ravidass, which is more common? Banaticus (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- thanks for help :-)
- i see that in the meanwhile the name in infobox has become "Shri Guru Ravidass Maharaj Ji". In india you can add as respect so many titles that there is no end: shri hazur baba sant satguru ji maharaj ji.... I did not checked but there is some common rule also for christian saints? The title saint is not part of their name. If Guru Ravidass should remain the same, i will change the page of MY guru, Sirio Carrapa, to "Sant Satguru Sirio Carrapa".
- Maybe somebody else can rename his guru as "The mighty supreme guru this and that" and this enciclopedy will become ridicolous ;-) --GurDass (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
|You used the
- Wikipedia has no shortage of guidelines here. WP:COMMONNAME says that if he's widely referred to in English with the "Guru" attached, you keep it. Otherwise, it probably gets stripped - see WP:NAME, WP:NCP, WP:NCCL. The guideline for Indian clergy is not finalized but is at WP:NCIN; see Titles and Honorifics. I can't tell you what to do here because I don't know much about it, or even about Indian names, but I'm suspicious that saying simply "Ravidass" would not identify to people who you're talking about. Wnt (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also Guru indicates a sense of respect and a better reference for the readers which can be taken forward, similarly Saints, However i am with you on not adding Satguru or Ji or Maharaj ji inside everywhere in the articles but as a name of the infobox and generally reffered to title we can have "Satguru Ravidass Maharaj ji" because this is largely acceptable as a name to whom it is referred to. And about Sant Kabir it is normally referred as Kabir. Also it makes no sense that because Sirio Carrapa cant be added with Guru title so Guru Ravidass must not, also similarly it will apply to Sikh Gurus and other Gurus. It is not about my Guru or your Guru or anything but how mostly the person or a guru or a sant is reffered to.Superiorfaither (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Guru (Devanagari गुरु) is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", particularly in Indian religions. The Hindu guru-shishya tradition is the oral tradition or religious doctrine or experiential wisdom transmitted from teacher to student. Guru Ravidas was a preacher, poet and is considered as a messenger of God by a very large community of people mainly Chamar in India.He should be called a guru because it is a honour. It's correct that a normal person cannot take the honour of being called as a Guru, but Ravidas was not a normal man. He is the root of a very big religion in India. The word Guru is used just to show respect to the pure and divine souls. The word Guru is used in many names where, actually the word Guru is not the part of name. For example the page Guru Nanak, the founder of sikhism religion has the name Guru in the title but actually guru is not the part of name. It's just a sign of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh0777 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Dates of life
This article is a little out-of-hand with dates of birth and death.
According to the body of text his age is anything from 70 to 126 (which they seem to be claiming 126 is correct).
The infobox gives his age as 151 (1377 AD - 1528 AD).
Someone needs to clarify all this supposition with some refs - mainly because none of them are referenced, apart from Schaller who says he was around 70 (which is eminently a much more believable age). Chaosdruid (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has gone a little haywire in many ways. The subheads no longer describe the randomly-scattered facts beneath them. The lede claims, without authority, that Ravidas founded a religion. The use of honorifics is ridiculous (and unsourced) and the change to the form "ravidaSS" is unwise since search engines show from 3 to 10 times more hits for the original "ravidas" - in fact, for all usages of the word "das" and for all similar transliterations this form is overwhelmingly more usual. And some of the descriptions of the subject's character are from extremely pro-POV sources. We want a sober, factual article, not a bloody hymn of worship, thanks. Finally, there is a very large number of errors of spelling and grammar. Redheylin (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I just did a lot of cleanup here. 2 sections were removed as blatant copyvio. The "death" section was entirely without references and contained no useful facts, just speculations from Believers, so that was removed as well. I made some fairly extensive revisions to the text in several places, mostly to clean up spelling and grammar, but also for language and tone; an encyclopedia article should be neutral in tone, not adulatory. Finally, I removed the honorifics and titles throughout, they aren't allowed at all, except that "guru" should probably be included once, with a link for explanation (but not used repeatedly as a title in the body of text). There is a lot that could still be improved, but this was at least a start. Doc Tropics 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)