|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ravidas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
There is no precedent of using Guru as an honorific title for any Bhakti saints in medieval India or even modern India outside of the state of Punjab. The district created and named after him in Uttar Pradesh in the early 2000's by the government led by Mayawati(also a Chamar by caste) that includes his native village and the area where he spent his life is named "Sant Ravidass Nagar." Also, most references going back a few centuries and upto a decade ago refer to him as Sant, Bhakt or Bhagat(Punjabi). The new title has been added exclusively by the Ravidasia Ad Dharam movement of Bist Doab region in Punjab, India that has always been enumerated as a Hindu sect in the Indian census but keep the Sikh holy scriptures the Guru Granth Sahib in their places of worship mainly because that's how the knowledge of Ravidas and his teachings entered Punjab when all non-brahmnical castes whether hindu or those converted to Sikhism started following the book as the main religious text but that was discontinued among upper caste hindus in the wake of the hindu revivalist Arya Samaj movement in the early 20th century. The keeping and preaching of all Hindu texts was forbidden to the lower castes and the The Adi granth not only included hymns from saints of all castes but was also available to all for their life and death rituals regardless of ones caste. And it being the only religious text with the entire body of hymns created by him.
Various attempts were made by the Arya Samajis through the Ad dharam movement in the 1920's after a failed attempt in the late 1800's to influence Ravidasias of Bist Doab away from Sikh scriptures during the same time period. This assertion of separate religious identity under the name of Ravidasia religion too started among the communtiy members settled in the West after the conflict in 2009, not by the community in Punjab or let alone his native region in the Hindi belt states but by the affluent expatriate Bist Doab Ravidasia community or Chamar as commonly known in North India. Now the special title Guru or the more recent Shri Guru Ravidas ji Maharaj, and the proposed new religion is an attempt to reinvent his identity to rival the ten Sikh gurus for whom the title Shri Guru or Maharaj is traditionally used by the most religious folks or more commonly Guru as the title and ji at the end. And also to project the theory that since Ravidasias who are enumerated as hindus in Bist Doab have not formally converted to Sikhism this gives them a reason to assert a separate religio-political identity now that they have attained an equal socio-economic stature at least in the West. Although it is entirely based on them being the same caste as Ravidas as opposed to the Sikh identity that is religious in it's nature and also includes numerous castes and even Chamars in other regions of the state and despite the fact that it(10 gurus+the Adi granth as the last guru) has been the basis of Sikh religious order since the beginning of that faith. More over Ravidas himself never started a faith or religious order hence the titles used for him change by the region and language and even new ones are being added like the latest Guru or Shri Guru in Bist Doab. Therefore it represents only a Punjab or rather Bist Doab centric idea of a new title that does not represent the majority of Ravidasia communtiy in Northern India which far out numbers the more vocal and affluent Bist Doab Ravidasia/Chamar community which has more access to the media and international resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
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)