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.
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)
So far we have not any come up with any strong argument in favour of his nationality as Indian.
If Bengali can't be his nationality on the basis that Bengal was not an independent country then he can not be an indian either. India became a country in 1947 which was long before he died.
You are bringing up Gandhi's nationality as an example to back your claim. But you are not interested to take Kipling's nationality argument into consideration. Do you not see this as double standard at all? Shoshanko (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking he was a British. Wasn't he? Shoshanko (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Folks, what is with the nonsense posted under the Death section?
Can you please review and remove it? Vivekananda was not a medieval or ancient personality - whose account is more hagiographical than biographical. He died in the 20th Century and such fabled accounts for a modern personality are inappropriate.
Is there any info on Vivekenanda's views on proselytizing? The Vedas probably do not mention proselytizing in the context of making the Vedas available to other cultures than to the then inhabitants of the Indus Valley and those related to these inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Vivekananda went to the west to raise money for his charity-work in India, as far as I know. His succes in the west was much greater than expected, so he shifted his focus. Kind of proselytizing, I uess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)SWAMI IS BELONH KSHATRIYA CASTE.SOURCE -SANSKRTI KE CHAR ADHYAYA BY RAMDHARI SINGH DINKER
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)