Talk:Rambhadracharya/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Timeline

I recently made Template:Timeline of Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, i think we can add this in article as done in Rabindranath Tagore (which is a FA). :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen that done before, a good idea which I may also use elsewhere... Perhaps it would be better to have it hidden by default as it is quite long? --Mirokado (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Made it hidden by default, can i now add it in the article? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Poetry and plays

Recently User:Redtigerxyz raised some points in the peer review. As per his comments, i think converting the list in the "Poetry and plays" section to prose format will be a good choice. I have made a draft here, kindly give suggestions. Regards, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. --Mirokado (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, add the name of all Mahakavyas. Instead of just a count, discuss the themes of his works too. FA William Shakespeare is a great inspiration and I would like to see something like Poems and Plays sections in that article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A couple of typos in your draft corrected, hope that is OK. This now seems rather indigestible as one block of text. Is it possible to find a logical split for two or three paragraphs? --Mirokado (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks or the corrections. I spited it into 3 paras, maybe we can add a pic too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Goswami 1965 ref

Please can someone have a look at the following in the Rambhadracharya#Virakta_Diksha section? The ref name seems to refer to 1965 but the ref text is referring to an encyclopedia published in 1916. Difficult to tell what has gone wrong here.

<ref name="Goswami1965">{{cite book | last = Dodd | first = Maed | year=1916 | title = New International Encyclopedia, Volume 22 | publisher = Princeton University | location = Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=JAcoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover | accessdate=10 September 2011 | page=847}}</ref>

Thanks. Whatever it is used for the citation will need to be updated: Dodd, Maed are the publisher; Princeton are the owner of the digitised book so not relevant here; we need, preferably, author and title for the article referenced and editor(s) for the encyclopedia. --Mirokado (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors and publishers added. The ref name was wrong as I might have copy-pasted a reference template from some other article. The book had full view on Google Books some days back but now its gone. Nmisra (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is a 1916 reference for a man born in 1950? "Swami Karpatri advised him not to marry, to stay a lifelong Brahmachari (celibate bachelor) and to take initiation in a Vaishnava Sampradaya (a sect worshipping Vishnu, Krishna, or Rama as the supreme God)". What part of the ref does the ref support? If only the definition of a Vaishnava Sampradaya (as i suspect), Just remove the reference, there is no need. The first sentence of Vaishnavism has a ref for it. A ref is needed for things that are likely to be challenged. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:JagadguruRamabhadracharya013.png Signature infobox

Such an educated person must have another sign. A thumb impression is common use for legal purposes along with usually a signature. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thumb impression is the only signature he uses as he does not use any pen, Braille or any other aid. This is what he used for his admission in SSU also - Nagar 2002 mentions it. Nmisra (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, where a signature is absolutely required (e.g. university admission or passport or court testimony), he uses the thumb impression. Where it is not, e.g. personal letters, a representative signs for him as in this letter. In his poems and compositions, the usual छाप (Chāpa) or भणित (Bhaṇita) of 'Giridhara' or occasionally 'Rambhadracharya' is used in the last verse as the equivalent of signature. Nmisra (talk)

I am sorry. I forgot that he was visually impaired, so he may not have a sign. But a thumb impression really a signature. Should we really fill that field with a thumb impression? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Its an interesting special case, and I don't think we've come across this kind of problem in any article before. Since the subject doesn't have a signature, this should be the next logical option, but I'm unsure if this will work out well. Lynch7 12:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But is it OK to place images taken from court rulings? I'm not the best copyright guy here, but we must go by WP:SLP I guess. Lynch7 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The thumb impression is used as the de facto signature for illiterate and visually impaired persons in India. As you mentioned correctly, it is a special case. It's not from the court ruling but from his affidavit in the court, which is not copyrighted. Nmisra (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Image

I am confused that which image should we use in the infobox - File:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya.jpg or File:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya2.jpg, the first one is a VI on commons and the second one is nominated, I will prefer the second one as it may become a Featured picture. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 05:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Like the current one. Much more is going on in the second one. The garlands, background, the mikes.. too much. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to promote the article to A-class

As per WP:A?, if no WikiProject associated with the article has a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. I propose the same for this article. I think the article meets the most of WP:FACR. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to give his/her opinions about this here.

Comments

Sp33dyphil

Note I'm not a really good copyeditor, so please be aware of that.

• Alt text missing. Done
• Checklinks indicates problems with some links -- please repair them. Done
• " to the United States of America"
• "Vidyavaridhi (PhD)" Why mention Vidyavaridhi?

Comment: I'm no expert on A-class articles but, according to WP:A?, Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. At first glance, it seems to me that while the article is moving in that direction, it still has a long way to go. The references, in particular, are problematic. There are numerous primary sources (e.g., 1, 15), opinions (e.g., 3) and many sources of uncertain reliability (e.g., the Nagar source and the numerous books). --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are commenting by only looking at references and without reading the article or sentences in the article which quote the references. I would recommend reading the GA review and the comments following it. Primary references are used to quote the subject, or where a secondary reference is unavailable or not applicable. What's the issue with that? Actually sometimes reviewes are over-obsessed with non-primary references - even an FA like Rabindranath Tagore has many primary references - maybe one can separately list primary and secondary issues as in that article which would add to the quality of the article. How is [15] a primary reference for the subject - it is a judgement of the Allahabad High Court? [3] is a felicitation speech by speaker of Lok Sabha - and the article only cites [3] for facts (like author of books, chancellor of university, Sanskrit scholar, or quote by Chatterjee) and not any opinoon - how can then reference [3] be called an opinion? Can you elaborate why Nagar source and other books are unreliable sources - that seems like your personal opinion. Nmisra (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've mainly looked at the references (which is why this is in the comment section and not in the oppose section). However, 'high-quality reliable references' is an important criterion for FA and, if you're looking for FA status, the presence of a large number of primary references is going to be problematic. The non-availability of secondary references is even more problematic. A court judgement, btw, is always a primary reference. About the Nagar reference, I said 'uncertain reliability' because I note that it is extensively used but there is no way for me to judge whether it is reliable or not. If you use a source extensively and are seeking FA status you'll need to demonstrate reliability at some point. --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have seen this article grow and get better every day, but it is still closer to GA than to A/FA, primarily due to Reliability of references, neutrality of text and comprehensiveness. See PR for details. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Language for a reference

Please can someone add the appropriate |language=Whatever parameter to the "subedi" reference (defined in the References section). You can replace the <!-- FIXME: language --> comment, also place the appropriate {{lang|xx|...}} template around the foreign language quote (see other quotes for examples). Sorry I can't tell what language is is by looking and guessing is not good enough. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, it is Hindi. Nmisra (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit January 2012

Loss of eyesight

I'd like to provide a wikilink for myrobalan if possible, but I need to be sure what to link to. I think it might be the one known in Sanskrit as haritaki (described in the article Terminalia chebula). Are you able to confirm this please? --Stfg (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Will need to check other sources. Will get back on this. Nmisra (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First composition

In the translation, I've changed "you stand [looking at him] smirkingly!" into "you stand there smirking!". Is that all right, or have I missed the sense? --Stfg (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all right to me. Nmisra (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Graduation and masters

Did Indira Gandhi award the medals (i.e. decide who should get them), or just present them? --Stfg (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Only presented them, she hardly knew any Sanskrit to decide the winners. Nagar 2002, Dinkar 2008 and Parauha 2011 all say she only presented. Let's make that clear in the article. Nmisra (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, I'll do that. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Virakta Diksha

When you have titles introduced by a semicolon, like

Six-month fasts

...

Tulsi Peeth

it implies that these are sub-sections of the section previously established. As these two really aren't parts of Virakta Diksha, I've changed it so that all three things are subsections of a larger section. To this, I've given the provisional title Religious development, but this may not be the best. Please replace it with something else if you like. --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Would suggest the alternate titles Early religious life (as later life is also religious) or 1979-1988 (As Tulsi Peeth is social service and religious institute). Thoughts? Nmisra (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I went for the seond, because the higher section heading just above is "Later life", so the first might confuse people a little. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical edition of Ramcharitmanas

In bullet 5, there are two instances of Śaṃkara. I believe the second is incorrect, but failed to get the right (lower case) character to appear properly. --Stfg (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The second is actually Saṃkara - with the dental syllable rather than the palatal. Have changed it, not sure if you meant some other letter. Nmisra (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I don't know the script, it's just that I noticed that it uses a shape that is transcribed earlier in the paragraph as an s with a rectangular hook under it (described as dental fricative) --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, what you mentioned is s̪ which is the IPA version of IAST s which is capitalized as S. ɕ is the IPA version of the IAST ś which is capitalized as Ś. IPA is not capitalized. Nmisra (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Syllable and instant

They are not the same. A long syllable has two instants, a short syllable has one instant. Syllable is a phoneme or linguistic unit (zero or more consonants followed by a vowel), while instant is a temporal unit (time taken to pronounce the syllable). See here where it is called a unit. The distinction is not required in English since English prosody is more about stressed and unstressed syllables rather than long or short syllables which regulate Sanskrit and Indic prosody. I have changed syllable back to instant. Nmisra (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Apologies for my mistake. "Instant" is not ideal, as it suggests something with no duration. "Unit" would be better, or how about using the term you introduce, mātrā, and perhaps give a definition like "(where a short syllable is one mātrā and a long syllable two mātrās) at first occurrence? --Stfg (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I had used instant as that is the term used in some standard texts, e.g. Apte Dictionary section on Sanskrit Prosody (see here - second line on the right column of page 648). Having said that, I am all for using terminology that makes it easier to read. The problem with mātrā is the diacritics - repetitions may make the text difficult to comprehend as people tend to omit words with diacritics. What do you say? Nmisra (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're the expert. If "instant" is standard, using it with a definition on first occurrence would be fine. --Stfg (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I have defined in a footnote, but feel free to move it to the body if you think that would help. Nmisra (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine as you've done it. Saying "syllabic instants" at the first occurrence helps, too. --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello,

As a non-involved editor, just suggesting that line(not entire line, just these words) "born 14 January 1950 as Giridhar Mishra" from the lede to be moved to the Birth and early life section. Just a suggestion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly standard to include other names, include name at birth, in the lede of biographies (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Names). I've rewritten the line to make it consistent with other biographies though. --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)