The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Swami Vivekananda is credited with raising interfaith awareness and bringing Hinduism to the status of a major world religion during the late 19th century?
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.
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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars 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.
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 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. ISBN0-19-511338-1., Barnes, Michael (2002). Theology and the dialogue of religions. Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 160. ISBN0-521-00908-1. --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? LeadSongDogcome 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. JimCarter 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. LeadSongDogcome 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. JimCarter 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Support see Question above Ok, going on simple trust and assuming good faith that no one here would lie to me about the common naming, I'd support this move.--Yaksar(let's chat) 15:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Support where people are quite clearly most often known by something other than just their name, we use it. See Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. —innotata 10:23, 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. LeadSongDogcome 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.LeadSongDogcome 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.
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. JimCarter 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". JimCarter 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" OCLC6903434. Here, we see an announcement by the Vedanta Society of a series of "lectures by the Swami Vivekanada". LeadSongDogcome 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(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. JimCarter 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. LeadSongDogcome 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! JimCarter 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.
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)
Interesting, I will also like to know. @Sitush: Can you put some light ?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:25, 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 NationalityNationality 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)
“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)
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)
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)