Talk:Swami Vivekananda/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lunatic asylum of castes

I keep seeing commentary that this person described Kerala as a "lunatic asylum of castes" but I cannot find a decent source for this anywhere, not even on GScholar. 1700 GHits, 2 GBooks hits (snippet view, no obvious source). Did he say it? Where did he say it? Can I have a reliable source for it, please?

If nothing turns up then I'll be deleting it from all articles that mention the phrase, which is quite a few. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont see the mention of "lunatic aslym" in this article. From what I see in google books, "When Swami Vivekananda visited Kerala in 1892, he was believed to have compared it to a "lunatic asylum" because of its caste system, which was the most rigid, oppressive and obscurantist. It was an intricate and elaborate enmeshing of...", "Untouchability and unapproachability were widely rampant in Kerala which forced Swami Vivekananda to call Kerala a 'lunatic asylum'. When Kerala was river with such malpractices in the name of religion,..."; On the web and blogs, what I see is that this has been repeated and copied over and over again without proper context; I see no point in inclusion of this information in an article, esp a opinion of Kerala of 1890s. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologise. I should have made clear that it was not in this article but is in many others. I queried here because readers of this article might know, given that the subject is the alleged source of the quote. I'll take a look at the source of the quote you found at GBooks. Like you, I have considerable doubts.Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hm. I note that the source you have found does not itself provide any real information about who believed it etc, so this could run and run. Especially since that book was self-published collection of his own writings in newspapers. I think that in the circumstances these comments need to be removed. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I personally feel that there is no point in including a opinion of Kerela of 1890's, esp without proper context. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed the statement, which was in five articles. Thanks for checking for sources + comments. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

more teachings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.35.141 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing Info Box and adding one or two information

Editing Info Box, adding Bengali in Person's name, adding philosophy Vedanta, adding week day of date of birth Monday date of death.... and few more small editing.. Titodutta (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Revising Some Links

Some linked did not have any separate pages. I am unlinking one or two of them like- Gurudas Bandpadhyay etc.Tito Dutta 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda's Name's Audio File

I have included Swami Vivekananda's name's audio file.
--Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Improve Swami Vivekananda Info Box

I suggest to improve Swami Vivekananda (main) infobox by adding more points, Swami Vivekananda signature etc.--Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting A Photo Gallery In Swami Vivekananda Article

I am starting a photo gallery in the Swami Vivekananda article. Please help to modify the photo gallery, add photo information, alt text etc. --Titodutta (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I request not to add more images in the gallery, you can help to add information in those existing photos. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The influence section needs citations

The influence section needs citations. Most of it is seems to be opinion. Some of the opinion presented contradicts vivekananda's views presented earlier in the article i.e. compare the british propaganda bit and the words of vivekananda to his countrymen while he visited Japan. Sandhuna (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can start work. :) --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the item college and brahmo Samaj it`s said that Vivekananda and Keshab Chandra Sen belonged to a Fremason lodge. It seems to me to be some kind of vandalism. If you search the Brahmmo Samaj in the internet, you won`t find anything about that. And even in the cited book you won`t find the word "Fremason". Ì don`t know well the correct way to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo.nascimbeni (talk • contribs) 08:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's Masons claim him as their own. [[1]] Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I had searched for it before in the cited book, but I didn`t find. Now I looked for it again in the specific pages and the author really says that it was a Freemason`s Lodge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo.nascimbeni (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
Rumiton (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Biggest Menace- Someone Has Included Swami Vivekananda Had AIDS

In Swami Vivekananda article, someone has just included that- He was suffering from asthma, diabetes, cholera, tuberculosis, diarrhea, malaria, cancer, piles, ulcer and AIDS. and given this book's page 45-46 in support. I have quickly read the pages mentioned in reference, but found nothing like this there. I am reverting the change. I also suggest to make this article Protected. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Protection is quite a major step, which runs counter to the democratic philosophy of Wikipedia. It does not seem necessary here, the level of vandalism seems low. If someone puts in something stupid, just revert it. If they persist, report them. Also I suggest you ease up on the Wikilinking. If someone wants to know more about Paris or Europe they can look them up. Filling the page with blue stops the important links from standing out. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikilinking? If you are talking about the main article, then, I have not written this article, and I can't remember if I have added any link here. And is it possible to make the page Semi-protected (only auto confirmed users will be able to edit)? Thanks. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 02:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to remember, you can check the article history. On 26th June you linked Monday, Friday, England, America and Paris. I am politely suggesting you delink them yourself. The article is not currently experiencing sufficient vandalism to warrant any level of protection. Rumiton (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for guiding to article history.:) I have delinked Monday Friday (from infobox). I have not delinked Vedanta (from infobox), as I feel that is necessary there. And before delinking America, England and Paris, I politely request to consider the point that in the same section similar other cities and countries like Brittany, Vienna, Istanbul, Athens, Egypt etc are already linked (and I have not linked them). So, will it be okay to delink only selected 1-2 links out of 10-12 similar links specially as Vivekananda's visit to America, England was more important and his visits to Brittany, Vienna, Istanbul, Athens and Egypt etc were only short visits. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is not how relevant they are to the subject, the point is whether the reader is likely to need more general information on them. Vedanta is little known in the English-speaking world, and therefore a good link. Ask yourself about the others. Rumiton (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If New Testament should be linked in the article of Jesus Christ, then "Vedanta" has the same importance in the life of Swami Vivekananda. Yet, if you think you can go ahead and delink Vedanta. Surely I'll not it relink it after that. Thanks! :)--Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, did you read what I wrote? You seem to have this all around the wrong way. I said that because the word Vedanta is little known in the English-speaking world, then a link to it is helpful and a good thing. Links to subjects that are well known are more questionable. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, I did not concentrate on that part. I/we'll work on the links shortly. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision Of Linking

This is a drift from another talk of this talk page. I propose to consider that is there already enough linking in this article. I am not making any change, but, I suggest start with removing those links which don't have existing wikipages (red links) currently. Thanks!--Tito Dutta (Talk) 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, along with the above. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait for 1 week or so for other opinion (also for the feedback who has/have linked them). After that I'll start working on this section. I have included in this my task list. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll wait 2-3 days more for any other opinion, then start to clear unexisting links. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have done some works in this section! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal To Add Swami Vivekananda's Signature

I propose to add signature of Swami Vivekananda in the infobox. I have not uploaded the image in Wikipedia/Wikimedia still, but, you can see the photo here. What do you think? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, no problem. If you can get it to work, go ahead. Rumiton (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded the image, you'll get it here. Help needed 1) to add the image in infobox (I don't know how to add it there without revising the whole infobox) and 2) to add information in the File description etc Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That's why I said, "If you can get it to work." I know I can't. Rumiton (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Eureka! Changed the source-code for Template:Infobox Hindu leader to accommodate the signature. SASSOTO (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Great work! I did not think of it! I'll go ahead with this and add few more information! :-) --Titodutta (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Birthtime And Week Of The Day

I have added birth time of Swami Vivekananda with a reliable reference. I request it without discussing. Thanks! --Titodutta (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Talk

  • First, I suggest to concentrate on the infobox. Sassoto started to work on it and modified the source code of the infobox [Details here. But, I have noticed all fields are not being displayed in infobox.
  • I have started to work in infobox, and added the reference of the quote of the infobox. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Can u please specify those fields? SASSOTO (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I added 2-3 more fields from the infobox template you provided. But, those fields were not displayed. You can check the template which you gave in last signature related discussion! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 10:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Need to split the Biography section

The Biography section is too long and needs to split. Swaminarayan is a good example of how it is done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different type of article. Swami Vivekananda's Wikipedia article's biography section is much more detailed.

And if you think that section is too long why did you remove the bot's tag? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the tag said it should be split in a different article, which is not the case. It should be split in sections. Haven't found an appropriate tag. But the first part of the section "This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" applies. The first 8 sections of Swaminarayan are part of his biography. This article also violates Wikipedia:Featured article criteria by "overwhelming table of contents". --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, looks good, but, I (also) suggest year split. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of FAs with overwhelming table of contents. E.g- Martin Bucer. On the other hand, there's an FA with half the size- Jocelin of Glasgow. So can u plz clarify how to deal with this criteria? SASSOTO (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Doubt on Swami Vivekananda's Father's Name Spelling

According to Nikhilananda's biography the spelling is Viswanath Dutta. If you want to read online --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even Gautam Ghosh's biography says so.SASSOTO (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's wait for few days for other opinion (if anyone gives), then we'll change it. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 03:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction too long

Comparing it with a lot of GAs and FAs, I think that the introduction being too long is a negative point for the quality of the article. Need to scissor it tactfully. I am currently working on shrinking the table of contents. SASSOTO (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya, some points have been repeated there. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Please go ahead & shorten the intro then SASSOTO (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna mission founding date

The article repeatedly suggests that Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission were both formed on 1 May 1897 in the section Back in India. The fact however is that Ramakrishna Math started much earlier as the Baranagore Monastery, four weeks after the death of Sri Ramakrishna on 16th August 1886. The original monastery at Baranagore called Baranagore Math was shifted in January 1899 to a newly acquired plot of land at Belur in the district of Howrah, now famous as the Belur Math. Ramakrishna Mission however is correctly stated to have been formed on 1 May 1897 after Swamiji's return to India.

These facts can be verified by visiting their websites or the wikipedia pages themselves and I am going to make the relevant corrections in the article with the appropriate edit summary. SASSOTO (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a wrong information. AFAIK, the math which was created in Baranagore was not named Ramakrishna Math or Mission. Actually Swami Vivekananda mentioned about the name in 1895 or 1896, and the name was registered to Governement in 1896. I can collect some references.
However you can post the exact page URL and/or more reliable reference. Requesting for further discussion but revert/undo the edit currently if possible. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement as a "See Also" Note

I could not understand Swami_Vivekananda_Youth_Movement is a authentic article or not (or an advertisement). Two months ago I requested to discuss on it in that article's talk page. There are some misleading, wrong information in the page as well. I propose to remove the link from this article's See Also recommendations! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work... just two sections to go before a GA nom

SASSOTO and Tito Dutta, good work improving the article.. Both of you may consider a GA nom after rewriting "Teachings and philosophy" and "Influence". Some finishing touches are needed. Some suggestions/observtions (some tags added):

  1. All quotes need references
  2. Statements like "Above all Swami Vivekananda helped restore a sense of pride amongst the Hindus, presenting the ancient teachings of India in their purest form to a Western audience, free from the propaganda spread by British colonial administrators, of Hinduism being a caste-ridden, misogynistic idolatrous faith" need to attributed or removed (WP:POV worries). It sounds like a personal WP:ESSAY.
  3. WP:PEACOCK terms: "a great influence on the youth of India"; "the practice of such high principles"
  4. Statements like "This shows the esteem held by Tagore for the Vedanta Kesari" amount to WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
We have already had some discussions on it. We'll go ahead soon! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Swami Vivekananda → Vivekananda – Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:HONORIFIC can make exceptions. I think Swami Vivekananda finds overwhelming use in sources. I recall a similar recent discussion at Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Lynch7 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been through this in the recent past and I'm sure you'll find plenty of arguments in that RM if you look up the archives (two failed RMs in archive 1). I'm seeing similar repeat move requests elsewhere (Kolkata). Is there an agenda here? Zuggernaut (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is really too much, I've never heard "Vivekananda" alone in my life. You are challenging titles of Saint Matthew, Saint Nicholas, Saint Peter, Saint Joseph, etc. Have you ever read WP:COMMONNAME clearly? — Bill william comptonTalk 15:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose- After taking Sanyas (renunciation) , in Hinduism, (not mandatory) but, in many cases, "Swami" becomes a part of the name. And for all Puri Sanyasis, Swami is a part of name. Close this discussion as soon as possible. Swami is not an honorific title. You can call title like "Bharatyuvanayak Swami Vivekananda" an inappropriate name, not this one! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that Press Releases of govts. are reliable because they follow a strict policy of mentioning people by their official names. They even refer to Manmohan Singh as "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh," Mamata Banerjee as "Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee" and Meira Kumar as "The Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha Meira Kumar." Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Quoting editors who share my point of view The above discussion misses the principal idea of the naming conventions. Article titles should be as simple as possible without creating confusion. If there were other articles entitled Vivekananda, then some form of disambiguation becomes necessary, but that is not the case. Hence it should be the title of this article. The bizarre example of Saint Peter misses the point that Peter is about as ambiguous a title as one could find. It is simply embarassing that nobody pointed that out. Also, can anyone prove that 'Swami' is a part of his name? Swami translates to 'Saint' which is an honorific. Its Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi not Mahatama Gandhiji. And in fact, to quote an n-gram user, Swami Vivekananda is about half as frequent as Vivekananda alone. It can't be more common; but if Swami were "almost always" used, it would be closer to 90% or 95%. Regarding the saints, even Columba was a saint but he ain't "Saint Columba." In response to TD, who says it becomes a part, do they get an affidavit to change it? And BWC, if you have ever gone to Belur Math, you will see he is referred to as Vivekanand. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh!!! If you have mentioned about another example see the condition here.The condition is WORSE here. Go ahead and rename the Mahatma Gandhi article first, and there will be few more in the list! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead with that? I am only talking about the Vivekananda article. Also, WP:NOTTHEM is not an excuse/reason for not moving a page. Yes, it is for blocks, but take the liberty of substituting the words for the articles. Remember, 1 more redundant oppose, and I will report you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to your recent n-gram, have a look at this. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:HONORIFIC says: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. eg. Father Damien". Swami is closest to Father in nature as it illustrates the occupation. Hindu prefixes/suffixes like ji, Sri, Pujya, Parampujya are titles that denote honorific respect. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Check out Google Translate (and let me say...its completly accurate in this case). It proves Swami ≠ "Father". Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please read carefully. Swami literally does not mean Father. As Father means a Christian priest, Swami means Hindu monk (Encyclopædia Britannica (sadhu and swami: "They are sometimes designated by the term swami (Sanskrit svami, “master”), which refers especially to an ascetic who has been initiated into a specific religious order, such as the Ramakrishna Mission"). It illustrates the occupation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Same for Paramhans, e.g. Paramhansa Yogananda, this is how they are know. I find it oddly strange that whole world knows him as Ramkrishna Paramhamsa but Wikipedia page is titled Ramakrishna. My Bayesian posterior conditional probability computation says that Avenue X at Cicero was involved in moving the page to Ramakrishna. LOL. Nmisra (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: That article Ramakrishna is also strange. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - It's time to get these articles out of the Indic ghetto"walled garden". That means bringing the long-stalled proposed guideline into conformance with similar style guides elsewhere on WP. That means minimizing the use of prefixes such as titles, honorifics, styles, and such. See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Proposed Guidelines, Titles and Honorifics for previous discussion. Unless there is an article about a different, better known person called "Vivekananda", so that "Swami" is appropriate for disambiguation, we should not make it part of the article title. There should, of course, be a redirect from [[Swami Vivekananda]] to [[Vivekananda]] so that searching or linking on either term still gets to the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment on your metaphor of Indic ghetto: IMNSHO, on the contrary, it's time to protect the Ganges of Indic names which has the fixed path in the form of its own naming rules and the nectar like water of Samskara from the filth like the above proposed policy which has the industrial effluent of lack of knowledge about Indic names, the stink of unwillingness to learn, the viscosity of obstinacy and attracts scavengers in the form of the above opinion. Back to prose, as I have said above, Swami is part of name and that's how Swamis even sign it. Refer any signature of Swami Muktananda or any poetic work of Sivananda Swami. It's the equivalent of family name for Sannyasis in some monastic orders. PS: If disambiguation is the criterion, then Pope John Paul II should be renamed to John Paul II (Religious Leader) since Pope is also a title/honorific. Nmisra (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like "ghetto", substitute "cloister" or "walled garden" in the above, there's no call for personal attacks. Article names should be accessible to all readers, not just those who know what prefixes pertain. I would certainly have no objection to a change to wp:Naming conventions (clergy) such that the "Pope" prefixed articles and other such were moved (with redirects) to e.g. Alexander VI or if needed Alexander VI (cleric). The suggested "(Religious Leader)" dab fails on its capitalization, unneeded wordiness, and the presumption of leadership that wasn't always present. Elizabeth II signs her name with "Regina", but that doesn't make it part of her name and it certainly doesn't make it needed in the article title. Frankly, it makes no sense to squabble over whether these words are titles, honorifics, styles, offices, ranks, degrees, or anything else. The key point is that they are unnecessary extra verbiage in an article identifier that should be as short as possible without creating confusion. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack? Never said anything about you. Only presented a metaphor for the proposed policy and the your opinion. Nmisra (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In case of Regina, it in in violation of WP:COMMONNAME, so your comparison with Swami Vivekananda is not relevant. About your key point, IMHO, Swami Vivekananda is not particularly long (two names only), and does not create any confusion (confusion with what)? Also it is the most commonly used name and as a test, I tried the metrics suggested under WP:COMMONNAME, I tried six Google Searches and the number of hits for each are tabulated below. The results prove beyond any doubt that Swami Vivekananda is the more common name used to address the person. In lack of a current policy on Indic names which explicitly talks about the part of name "Swami" for ascetics, and in accordance with a current policy on WP:COMMONNAME as proved by results below, the name Swami Vivekanada has to stay. QED. Nmisra (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Search Used Vivekananda with Swami URL Vivekananda without Swami URL
Google Books (English) 67,000 Here 52,400 Here
Google News Archive Network 117 Here 76 Here
Google Search (English) 3.30 million Here 2.79 million Here
    • I'm certainly glad to be told that "the stink of unwillingness to learn" was not a personal attack, though I'm baffled what else it was intended to mean. The google queries shown are at best suggestive, because they can of course give no idea of the reliability or relevance of the web pages found. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • All metaphors were used for the proposed policy and opinions, not a single metaphor was used for you, how is it then a personal attack? If you cannot stand language of metaphors and take them as personal attack, don't use metaphors like "Indic ghetto". In lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise, one has no alternative but to assume that relevant results as a percentage of total results would be same for each category. Nmisra (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. Also, I have no idea why this one needs rescuing from this supposed "Indic Ghetto" when this "ghetto" doesn't differ in any form from Roman Catholic Ghetto or the Orthodox Ghetto as [[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)]] shows. Eitherways, there's no requirement out here for us to remove all religious titles, as the guideline for other clergy shows. In the absence of a guideline here, WP:COMMONNAME suggests that the article is at the correct title. —SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually it does differ. There is no accepted guideline for naming articles on Indic clergy, just a proposal that shows no signs of ever reaching agreement. The text of wp:Naming conventions (clergy) certainly has some silliness to it, but at least it is usable. Perhaps the best written of the lot is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles wherein wp:PBUH is clear, concise, and direct, recommending against such POV frippery. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Cannot compare Islamic honorifics with Hindu names. That makes sweeping assumptions. Nmisra (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • You still haven't identified what article Wikipedia should have on a Vivekananda other than this one which would require that the "Swami" prefix (even if it were a name) to be used for disambiguation. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For the nth time (as I have said before), Swami is part of his monastic name and not a prefix. That's how he signed it ( ), that's how he is known. And where does disambiguation come in here - I never brought it up? Nmisra (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating something does not make it any more correct. It is no more a name than is "Brother". A personal name has the purpose of distinguishing one person from another. Applying a word categorically to all people of a group isn't naming. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The above argument is repeated as well. Please don't assume things (Brother=Swami). Anyway this discussion is endless and we can continue arguing, so no point. Better to focus on Wikipedia policies than what you think and what I think. WP:HONORIFIC does not apply here, Indic name policy does not require removal of Swami, WP:COMMONNAME requires the full Swami Vivekananda. Nmisra (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course Brother doesn't equal Swami. I didn't say that it did. Neither does Friar, Father, Master, Professor, Reverend or any of the other western approximations. You assert that HONORIFIC does not apply, but you give no evidence of a substantial reason to discount it. You invoke COMMONNAME, but ignore the rest of Wikipedia:Article titles, such as wp:PRECISE. We don't have articles on multiple Vivikanandas, so we don't need any extra words to disambiguate them. Just his name is enough. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

HONORIFIC does not apply because it does not specifically address Dharmic/Indic names. Swami in "Swami Vivekananda" is not *disambigaution* - firstly disambiguation is done by parenthesis and secondly it is a part of his signed and common name as evident by numerous sources and books cited by the Wiki article. So "Swami Vivekananda" does not violate PRECISE, but "Vivekananda" is in direct violation of COMMONNAME. No multiple "Nanak"s, no multiple "John Paul II"s and no multiple "Teresa"s from Kolkata but these people are commonly known as "Guru Nanak", "Pope John Paul II" and "Mother Teresa" (last being a Good article), which is what the titles in Wikipedia reflect as per COMMONNAME. Nmisra (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We still don't see any wp:reliable sources to back the claim that the OED definition of Swami is wrong. Many sources use simply "Vivekananda", such as The indispensable vivekananda: anthology for our times, Vivekananda: a biography, Vivekananda: The Man and His Message by Eastern and Western Disciples, Vivekananda: The Yogas and Other Works, Vivekananda: his gospel of man-making with a garland of tributes, Vivekananda, world teacher: his teachings on the spiritual unity of humankind and Vivekananda: the yogas and other works. Even the mahatma said "I have gone through Vivekananda's works very carefully..." wp:COMMONNAME does not trump wp:NPOV or wp:PRECISE and the wp:OTHERSTUFF you raise is irrelevant. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
**Yawn**. Please first decide what you are trying to prove. First you try to prove that Swami is an honorific. When pointed out it is not and even if it is it is irrelevant since wp:HONORIFIC does not address Indic/Dharmic names, you talk about a proposed policy. When pointed out the policy is still proposed, you come to wp:PRECISE. When pointed out that it's not disambiguation, you come to WP:NPOV. Then you even bring up many sources (LOL) when Google results overwhelmingly show Swami Vivekananda is more common. You quote some Mahatma (which Mahatma?) which is totally irrelevant. You keep vacillating and change policy cited just to try to prove your point. That to me is sophistry - in language of computers, it is Brute Force Attack - try any possible means to get there. Please read up WP:NPOV (and other policies) first to see if it even addresses anything that is relevant here. I am not going to reply on this any further (no point in arguing), but now I think my metaphors were indeed quite accurate, no wonder you took it as a personal attack - it must have been so caustic because it is so true. Nmisra (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
What to do with you guys? As a neutral observer, I see merit on both sides of this argument, but you are not listening to each other. It does not seem to be a crucial problem (there are many more pressing issues currently on WP) so I would suggest if there is no overwhelming argument for change, the article might best be left as it is. Now go ahead... attack me. Rumiton (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Your comment was quite civil, Rumiton, why would it draw an attack? If you see merit in both sides, perhaps you could help by pointing out where it is that you see those merits. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you want me to summarize the points made so far? OK, but I think they were made clearly enough. Leaving aside the appeal to guidelines which must be interpreted by common sense anyway, you said that Wikipedia requires articles to be given the subject's birth name without the use of later-bestowed honorifics. That's a good and sensible point, and it would suggest we drop the word Swami. But it is countered by others who are saying that other cultures may have different attitudes towards naming, and that Indian people in particular are often given names in later life which become their "real" name, the name by which they are widely known, even though the new name may be composed mostly or entirely of what we might call honorifics. Thus the "Swami" is an important part of this subject's actual name. You are then saying that this is incorrect, and that Swami remains a title, even if he signs his name with it. I don't see an agreement being reached any time soon, and would respectfully suggest you all leave the subject to wither naturally. Rumiton (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mention birth name. That would be at odds with wp:COMMONNAME to no point. The difficulty with just letting the issue die is that more and more such articles are being created all the time. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Published sources tell us that "Swami", "Mahasaya", and "Paramhansa" are monastic titles used in that community:
  • Nikhilananda (Swami.) (1982). Vivekananda: a biography (4th ed.). Advaita Ashrama. p. 90. ...by the monastic title of "Swami," or the more affectionate and respectful appellation of "Swamiji"
  • Yogananda (Paramahansa) (1956). Autobiography of a Yogi (7 ed.). p. 343. A guru usually refers to his own disciple simply by his name, omitting any title. Thus, Babaji said "Lahiri," not "Lahiri Mahasaya.
  • Yogananda (Paramahansa); Self-Realization Fellowship (1952). Self-realization magazine. Vol. 24–25. p. 12. [at footnote to "Swami Yogananda"] *His proper title, since 1935, is Paramhansa Yogananda. In December of that year his guru bestowed on him the higher monastic title of "Paramhansa" {{cite magazine}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Agehananda Bharati (Swami) (1962). The ochre robe. George Allen & Unwin. p. 284. [Swami] means 'master' 'lord', also 'husband', 'lover', etc. As a monastic title prefixed to the monastic name it simply corresponds to 'Reverend' or Hebrew 'Rabbi' -- (which also means Master).
Our policies accept that we should relate that he had used such a title and who it was that bestowed it, but it clearly should not be given as if it was a forename, nor should we offer tributes to him cast in the voice of the encyclopedia. The intransigence of editors on other articles should not be taken as a reason for this one to be wrong too.
It appears that Nmisra is focussed on one part of our COMMONNAME guideline: {{quote|Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian. }}
Of course, links to Coughlin, Damien, Divine, Joseph, or Teresa on their own would have been problematic, so in each case additional verbiage was needed in the article title to make it distinctive. Most Wikipedia editors consider this extra verbiage as simply a form of disambiguation. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia editors consider this extra verbiage as simply a form of disambiguation. Your argument might have been more persuasive without this unsourceable generalisation, but it is still just a restating of your previous position, which invites your opposition to restate their claims and so on. If you believe the issue to be significant enough, I suppose the next step would be a request for comment. Rumiton (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further comments

Ok, User:LeadSongDog asked if I'd elaborate on my closure. In the above discussion, I saw no consensus to move the page. I read all of the arguments, and I saw that people cited policies and guidelines in both directions. One argument that carried a lot of weight for me was that "Vivekananda", without the "Swami", is not attested in sources.

We have many principles that go into titling decisions, and one that has enjoyed long and broad-based support from the community is that we don't invent new names for topics, but that we follow the lead of sources. If the vast majority of English-language sources use the honorific, then so do we. The WP:HONORIFIC rule has never been enforced across-the-board, and it's not clear that the intention of that principle would be served by removing "Swami" in this case. As far as I'm aware, that principle was adopted with European/Western naming and titling conventions in mind, and as many observed in the discussion, India is different.

Whenever I have a move decision questioned, I post to WP:AN asking for review of my close, so I've done that just now ([2]). If the community comes out against my decision, I won't oppose its reversal, of course. If there are any further questions, please do let me know. I'd be happy to clarify my thinking further, if that would help. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, if anyone knows how to make the green area above extend all the way to the bottom of the discussion like it's supposed to, I'd be much obliged. There must be a stray bit of HTML in there somewhere... -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the green area, a use of {{quote}} was breaking it. I don't know how to fully fix the issue, but adding nowiki tags to the quote seems to have resolved the issue at the expense of disabling the template. Monty845 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence Section Clean Up

We need to work on influence section of this article. Lots of uncited information etc are included in that section. That section does not meet the standard of the over all article, I think. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! M back and will help you in it as far as I can :) SASSOTO (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Great! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have added some references. Can you do for others like- Swami Vivekananda is widely considered to have inspired India's freedom struggle movement etc? :)

--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How Indian National Pledge Is Related Here?

How Indian National Pledge is related with this article which is linked in See Also section? I am requesting comments! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That page says that Swami Vivekananda wrote the Indian National Pledge. Is it so? SASSOTO (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don not know any/can not understand. The content does not have any citation too. Vivekananda dies in 1902, but the pledge was written in 1963! :oh: I have seen the external page included in the article, could not find Swami Vivekananda's name there! Going to ask it in that article's talk page! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Death

Swami Vivekananda died at "ten past nine at the night" (according to the article) or 10:35 (Shankar, Ochena Ojana Vivekananda page 276, 2011 edition)? Any third opinion? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda died on the day of the aphelion (Friday, July 4, 1902) of planet Earth in 1902. The aphelion is the point in the orbit of a planet or comet where it is farthest from the Sun. Probably, this could also be mentioned in the article, keeping a NPOV, about his disciples' claim of his having taken the Mahasamadhi, and consulted the almanac a few days before his passing away. He had also written a poem "4th of July" in 1898, and this is also a coincidence. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I also think there should be section for "Death". Any other opinion? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new section for "Death" It was not easy to decide where shall I break for new sections as information are scattered there in 3 different paragraphs. Finally, I decided to insert a section break after "He undertook pilgrimages to Bodhgaya and Varanasi towards his final days." this line which truly leads to his final day! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Small 1/2 para sections are discouraged as per MOS. So merging. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Influence Section External Link

I try to draw attention towards the external links which have been directly added in the article in Influence section, I suggest to add them in reference and not in main article body. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Grades

I undid Tito's recent edits, which tried to insert a GIF animation which didn't work, and was in any case unnecessary. For simple textual information, it is best to just present it as text, not bury it in images. The edit also cited a 2011 date for a reference, which was inconsistent with the ISBN given. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's year of edition. The book I have is 2011 edition. I do not have 1995 edition book (ISBN search gives you first edition of the book. So don't know about that edition page number, you know page number may change in each edition with preface etc). I'll collect a 1995 edition book, if necessary.
I though of text, but, we can't take lots of space in the article for this. So, felt animated image (size was not too large) will be ideal. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You should cite the edition you used, that's fine, per wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. But that edition will have a different ISBN, which you should state. It should be on the reverse of the title page, and usually is also on the cover in barcode format. Of course, it is possible there's a printer's error, but it's rather unlikely they'd get this particular detail wrong. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I collected that ISBN from book back cover. Do you want a scanned image? I do not have a scanner in my home, I can do it if it is needed. I have sent an email to the publishers too! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Must be a misprint. See ISBN for details, but in short such numbers should denote a specific product, not a collection of different editions. Is it possible that they are just different printings of the same edition? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The grades may be referenced and the animation does work (changes after some secs), but still I do not see the encyclopaedic value of the marksheets for 3 exams in the article. The section is better without an image but a relevant image can not be found. The scores in prose would be WP:UNDUE IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a browser dependence, but it certainly didn't work for me, and it wouldn't work for someone reading the article in print. The animation doesn't contribute to understanding, so why use it? Wikimarkup supports tables, that should be sufficient to the task if the information is considered to belong in the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was also confused about the animation and was not satisfied with the result there. Actually I made multiple images yesterday. See [[File:Svr1.jpg]], [[File:Svr2.jpg]], [[File:Svr3.jpg]], [[File:Svres.gif]] (last one was animated image; using nowiki mark up here, because I don't want to flood this discussion with 4 images). I thought of a slideshow of images with an option to go to next or previous image, but, later learned currently, slideshow is not possible.
And about ISBN, I have not heard back anything from Publishers still (though I don't expect a reply from them so quickly). But, about the book, I have scanned a page from the book (do you want to see? I have not uploaded in Commons still) which shows the editions, reprints and ISBN, it says, the books was enlarged in 2006, 2008 etc. I have found an online copy of the book, if you can read Bengali, go to Google and search with this query Achena Ajana Vivekananda site:pathagar.net Hope seeing yourself will help to understand that those are editions or prints. Size is about 7.0 MB.
About browser, I checked the animation using Firefox 6.0.2, Chromium 12.0.742.112 (90304) and Epiphany, it worked fine. I do not have internet explorer (I am using Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal), if you mention your internet browser and operating system, I can try to find out what was wrong there? Also note, if you are using extensions like "GIF Stopper" etc, it may be the reason of the problem. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm on IE7 (no choice here), but that is an incidental detail. We want to avoid representing text as images. See MOS:IMAGES. Screen readers can't cope with them. Animating that text is even worse because the information is lost to the reader of printed articles. We only use animation where it significantly contributes to understanding and that is not the case here. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point about Animation. And about IE7, I don't have it. :( --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Library of Congress "authorities" database I think Samkara refers to this author, whom they denote as "Śaṃkara, 1933-". If so, it might be more useful to find a copy of "The monk as man : the unknown life of Swami Vivekananda" (2011) New Delhi:Penguin. Unless I miss my guess, that's the English translation of the book that you intended to cite. As a side note, I find the authorities file is often useful in resolving the vagaries of similar name spellings, especially in a multilingual (and multi-orthography) context. The catalogue records for each volume show the "authorities" authorname, and usually the "as printed" authorname as well. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to collect one! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Conference

Please add something else, an audio, an excerpt or an image from his famous Chicago conference speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.241.181 (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The audio and videos you see in web, youtube are not original. And we have image already. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Awkward source

The ISBN for Eastern and Western disciples (2006). Life of Swami Vivekananda. Vol. 1 (Sixth ed.). Advaita Ashrama. p. 11. ISBN 81-7505-043-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) returns no result at GBooks. Is it correct? Can anyone see page 11 of the thing? - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct as I can see it at WorldCat. I'd still appreciate seeing a copy of the page, however. Also, I am curious as to why we are using a hagiography, as it clearly is in the older PDF version to which the article links. Hagiographies are scarcely reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest replacing this with a more reliable source. Will start working towards this. All these references can be replaced with a WP:RS --TheMandarin (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do. According to the Worldcat entry, that book is written by "his eastern and western disciples". Clearly then, it is by definition not wp:neutral.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous Quotations

Just added famous quotations of Swami Vivekananda along with proper citations. These quotations are important to get a grasp on the personality of such a mighty personality like Swami Vivekananda. Already there are other quotations given in the wiki page.

But I found that my additions were reverted back citing that it was not Wiki Quotes. If the quotations need to be moved into some other section, we can arrive at a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlraj (talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The separate section "famous quotations" was removed. Now the content is added under "Teachings and philosophy". There are many other quotations in the wiki page. The reason cited for deleting "this is not a Wiki Quote" is not valid therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlraj (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please insert those quotations in WikiQuote, not here (yes, its probably the 4th time you're hearing it, but still). Lynch7 07:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear MikeLynch, I have already inserted those quotations in WikiQuote. The quotations gives different aspects of the great person. Whether it is on religion, whether it is on priesthood, whether it is on mysticism. A reader who reads the wiki page got to get an idea about the multi-faceted personality of Swami Vivekananda, there are many other quotations on islam, christianity etc. Kindly guide me as to how to incorporate the quotations in the wiki article. Pearlraj7 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the signature. Anyway, yes, the same multi-faceted personality of Vivekananda is presented in prose. Wikipedia contains prose material, with the odd exception. Lynch7 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The difficulty, Pearlraj, is that we must have objective evidence for the selection of specific quotations to go in the article. Just because an anonymous editor on wikipedia thinks that they are significant is not good enough, per wp:NOR and wp:WEIGHT. If we can wp:cite wp:reliable sources that picked out these particular quotations as being "famous", then we could use them. As it is, the article already is embarassingly wp:POV, having been written largely by editors showing all the signs of being "true believers", willing to disregard the basic principles of encyclopedic writing. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Query - 1

I feel there are multiple places in the article where spelling is slightly confusing (I shall not call these error now). According to Nikhilananda's biography (If you don't have one, you'll find a copy in Web Search), the spelling of Vivekananda's mother is Bhuvaneswari Devi and not Bhuvaneshwari Devi. [Page 3 etc of that book]. Any opinion? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done this edit. In the meantime, I have checked few more sources to make sure about the spelling. I have not edited manually. I have used <Ctrl><H> (i.e. replace) function! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Datta, and not Dutta - RFC

Since it may be a major change, I am asking it here before making any change in article.
Before we try to nominate the article for GA, I think we should concentrate on it. The common spelling of surname of Vivekananda is Dutta (that's the spelling I use in my name too). But, Vivekananda, his father used to use the spelling Datta. See [Ramakrishna Mission article], or you can see Nikhilananda's biography. I have also one image of Vivekananda's signature where he spelled his name Narendranath Datta. In Vivekananda's college fees receipt too, the spelling Datta was used. So, what do you think we should change the spelling? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to make changes. You can change back later with citation! But, I don't think that will be needed, since the actual spelling was Datta. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion during GA review (not GA review)

Suggestions during GA review
Suggested by Dwaipayan
  • His father Vishwanath Datta[ was an attorney of Calcutta High Court. He was considered generous, and had a liberal and progressive outlook in social and religious matters. His mother Bhuvaneswari Devi...
Who was considered generous? Vivekananda or father? The third sentence starting with "His" makes it difficult to understand.
Reply DoneCorrected! Actually Amiya Sen (see the ref) wrote in his book in the same way (stating sentence with "he"). It make sense, since in the exact previous sentence the name of Vishwanath Dutta was mentuioned. Still corrected it for clarification! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • His mother Bhuvaneswari Devi was pious and had practiced austerities and prayed to Vishweshwar Shiva of Varanasi to give her a son...
tending to be a complex sentence. Consider braking. His mother Bhuvaneswari Devi was pious and had practiced austerities; she prayed to Vishweshwar Shiva of Varanasi to give her a son
What is meant by "practiced austerities"?
Reply:  DoneIMO, it is much more clear now! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • According to traditional accounts, Bhuvaneswari Devi reportedly had a dream...
Remove "reportedly". It already says, "According to...".
Reply:  Done Removed "According to..." and added another citation from ibnlive (a news media in India) in support of this change! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He was reportedly adept in meditation and could reportedly enter the state of samadhi. He reportedly would see a light while falling asleep and he reportedly had a ...
Remove these "reportedly"s. Say who reported? Or according to whom. Or just plainly state the facts, aided by refs.
Reply Not sure:Book of Amiya Sen and Arun Kumar Biswas have been used as references there. I don't have the book of Arun Kumar Biswas, but, Sen's book, he has written in same way.. He was reportedly! Do you think we need more refs? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We do not need more refs per se. But the way it is written is awkward. "Reportedly"s would definitely raise the question "reported by whom"? You can actually say, "According to the biography by XYZ, Narendra used to see a light..." Probably even better, you can quote the sentence from the source within quotations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: Done Thank you --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

  • and translated Spencer's book on Education into Bengali for Gurudas Chattopadhyaya, his publisher.'
Unless Mr Chattopadhyay is a notable person (does not seem to be), remove this. Just keep ...translated into Bengali.
Reply:  Not doneThe person published the book Vivekananda translated. He mainly inspired and financed for the work. IMO, the name is important! What do you think? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
For FAs, if you include some name thinking it is important, at least the person should have blue wikilink. In this particular case, the way the sentence reads does not explain why Mr Chattopadhyay is important. Any author would write something or translate something for his publisher, because the publisher will publish it. What is special about it? If there is something special here, you have to explain it (Chattopadhyay financially helped etc). Otherwise, Chattopadhyay will remain a fringe character in Vivekananda's life, and in this article (which follows Summary Style) deserves no mention.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply:  Done --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • studied during 1881-84
Use ndash for this range and any other year ranges.
Reply:  Partly done I have changed in some of the year range. Do you suggest to use ndash in H2 headings too? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, everywhere year ranged need to have ndashes. Also, in some other sections of the article I found instances where mdash were needed. So, these ndash and mdash issues need to fixed for the whole article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • After a discussion with Narendra, Dr. Mahendralal Sarkar reportedly...
Probably better sounding in this way -- Following a discourse with Narendra.... And definitely remove the "reportedly" here. You have quotation with ref.
Reply:  Done It's done.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He even rejected the Advaitist Vedantism of identity with absolute as blasphemy and madness, and often made fun of the concept[45]
Not sure if "with absolute" is needed here. End of sentence missing punctuation. The "with" preceding "absolute" makes it look like an adjective (with absolute something). Is it used as a noun here? --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Vivekananda and his brother disciples took care ...
What is "brother disciple"?
Reply: Not sure Brother disciple is English translation of Bengali: গুরু ভাই. In most of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda related articles we have used this term. Google also recognizes it. Not sure, what to do here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You need to explain what this means. If needed, create an article on Guru bhai, explain in detail there. Even if that is not done, at least in this article "brother desciple" needs an explanation within parenthesis.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: Fixed can be see in this edit. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You fixed this particular instance. But there are more similar usages like "brother monk" in the rest of the article. Those also need to be taken care of. IMO Guru bhai article will eventually be needed!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Done, see the notes section, make correction if necessary! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It is reported that when Vivekananda doubted Ramakrishna's claim of avatar, Ramakrishna reportedly...
Again, reported by whom? Reported by Vivekananda, or someone else? Otherwise, just remove reportedly.
Reply:  Not done The portion contains a very sensitive information where Ramakrishna claims himself as an incarnation/embodiment of Rama and Krishna. I think it is correct to write in the same way as it is written in Eastern and western disciples (the ref for the information). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message)
You are not getting the point here. "Reportedly" is not usually accepted as an acceptable word in FACs. Reportedly is a vague term. You will have to say who reported it (may be Vivekanada wrote it, or told this to someone -- Vivekananda reported that Ramkrishna said... would be acceptable.) If "reportedly" has been used in your source, the you can quote from the source, within quotation marks. If no written report exists, you can even say , According to folklore... or, Disciples believe that... (and this should be supported by reference).--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
ReplyEither  Done Or  Partly done See this edit for clarification! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • early morning hours of August 16, 1886...
change to 16 August 1886, as we are following DMY format.
Reply:  Done It's done.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • with the financial assistance of the householder disciples
What is exactly meant by "householder disciples"?
Reply: Not sure Like Brother disciples it is also a common term and used in many articles. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed Added this section as a link to clarify. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok , householder means Grihastha in this case! Haha, I did not know that. Normally householder means the head of household, or the renter of a house. I think this deserves more clarification as well. Use the term "Grihastha" once, and explain that in short within parenthesis.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • References: need a cleanup
    • No main source for Eastern and Western disciples 2006a or Eastern and Western disciples 2006b in "Bibliography"
    • pp. 899: For pp./pp= (parameter in templates) for range ranges, and p. for single pages
    • Amiya Sen 2006 is not properly linked. Use {{sfn|Sen|2006|pp=12–13}} and ref=harv in Bibliography template, concerning Sen. See Template:Sfn and "Related templates" section there for documentation
    • God lived with them, pp.49-50 and other pages in the book should be formatted consistently as {{sfn|Chetananda|1997|pp=49-50}}--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Requested Citation in Article
  • I have added one citation, in that biography, there is a long description on welcoming Vivekananda in Colombo. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And for the second citation, I suggest to remove that sentence. Since it is going to be something like cutting the nose if you have some pain in it... so, I have not edited it directly without asking. I suggest to delete this line because: I have checked 3 biographies (Nikhilananda, Shankar, Shankari Prasad Basu) and also some essays on Vivekananda, getting no support - I mean, nothing is mentioned about it.. in that sentence, two Wikisource article are linked (Personally, I dislike direct linking of external pages in article body.. anyway... in Wikisource too no direct help, Vivekananda has not mentioned about any vision in his speechs), so I suggest to remove this line.. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

More comments

Ok, I think my previous comment about "Influence" is not very well-focused. The section seems ok-ish. However, "Teaching and philosophy" definitely needs more. Major portion of the section is spent on "Vivekananda and science"!! The section has three large block quotes. This is not fair. His teachings and philosophies deserve more than this. First, I think, the sub-heading of "Vivekananda and science" should be done away with. Then, all those big quotes should be removed, leaving may be a really good and important one. The paragraphs above the "science" section reads good. However, some more paragraphs on his philosophy won't be bad, considering the large volume of works that he created. So please discuss some more about his philosophies (I do not know what to discuss, but think there may be lot, right?)--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The "science" section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, and must be removed. The last para about Tesla, can be merged with Influence section. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Animeshkulkarni comments

If these things are already discussed, point me towards them. Dont waste time in reasoning with me.

  • The page's layout is very distracting. Images are of different sizes. Try to soothe the page. Also if possible bring the image sizes to match with quote boxes.
  • Separate "See Also" section should not be used. All links in there are present in article somewhere. It is hence not needed.
  • The article seems incomplete without the audio of his famous Chicago speech. Can someone add it? It must be copyrights free now.
  • The infobox image has his signature and some writings of his. What does it say? That can go in the caption of the image.
  • The IPA at the start of "Swami Vivekanand" is the pronounciation in Bengali accent. Although he was Bengali and thats how his name was pronounced in that region, he is a national figure and his name is not pronounced that way throughout India. Shouldnt the IPA be of how it is pronounced without Bengali accent?

I have few other minor comments too. Will just do them myself in the article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply from Tito Dutta

Are you going to review it for GA? Answers of your questions in same order you have posted

No! I am not that experienced to review articles for GA. --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: Okay! No problem! We are waiting for a reviewer! --20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Image size... Yes, that can be done! But, all the images are not similar, few are long shot, few are close shot, some are group photos, so amount of content differ!
Keep the same widths for all pics. Check India where mostly all have same widths and hence text has good flow. ---Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply:What should be the image size then? 200px? Any opinion? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • See also... You'll find it more or less in many more articles in Wikipedia. And also not all entries are linkes in article body, eg. Sister Gargi!
I have seen Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section, I'll correct this section! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done It is done! I'll revise the list once again! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Chicago speech audio:AFAIK, all sound files and video files you see in internet and Youtube are not Vivekananda's original voice!
Oh! Didnt know that. --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: Okay! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Infobox image signature... Yes I thought of it.. but, the caption will become excessive long if we add it! BTW, it should be mentioned too that it was the image which was circulated in POWR, 1893!
Long captions are okay to have on images in the article. Dont know about infobox images. Will try to find that out.
Reply: What'll you try to find about the image? If you ask me I can help you there, in fact, if you want I can write a full length article on that image only! he he! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What i meant was; instead of Biːbeːk it should be something like ʋɪʋeːk. (I can be wrong in the IPA. Dont copy this.)

-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: New section follows. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall comment on the article

Ok, I read the whole article. After I finished, my reaction was "Something is missing!" I am not sure what, really. Somehow, the reading was not satisfactory.

The travels and triumphs are detailed. IMO, the section "works" need more elaboration. How? I am not sure as I am not familiar with his works. The section "Influence", while looks large, is not really too substantial, as it has some large quotes. Besides the quotes by this notable persons, do we have a source/book which is kind of a critical review of Vivekananda? That kind of source actually can be helpful to write the "influence" section.

IMO, Influence should be a more exhaustive section, as it is for his influence on the general public and noteworthy people that he is remembered, besides his instant-hit speech in USA. Somehow, I did not have the feeling that Vivekananda revived the Hinduism, although that has been mentioned in the lead. Once again, I think if we can get a critical review of Vivekanda as a source, that would be helpful.

Sorry for this rather vague general comments. I was not able to supply much actionable suggestions, so probably this is not much useful. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You can start work on influence section (since you are not familiar with works). Can you? For resources, use this, and Google search will be highly helpful here--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed Teachings and philosophy etc have been fixed! Created a new article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Chronology collapsed

I have created this table. I wish to add it right before "See also" section. By default, the table will be collapsed. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IPA - Swami Vivekananda -Lead

  • The IPA at the start of "Swami Vivekanand" is the pronounciation in Bengali accent. Although he was Bengali and thats how his name was pronounced in that region, he is a national figure and his name is not pronounced that way throughout India. Shouldnt the IPA be of how it is pronounced without Bengali accent? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply IPA... The point is not clear! Are you asking it to change to IPA-hns?
--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply of Animesh: What i meant was; instead of Biːbeːk it should be something like ʋɪʋeːk. (I can be wrong in the IPA. Dont copy this.)
-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply:No, that will be wrong, and I don't agree to this. Let me explain: The Bengali pronunciation of Vivekananda starts with ব (which is ब in Hindi/Sanskrit, something like B in Book), in Bengali there is no major use of letter/pronunciation for व (which is w is Swami, or pronunciation of W in War), so, if change it to B too ʋ, the Bengali pronunciation will immediately become wrong! Since Swami Vivekananda was a Bengali person (as you have told already), we have added IPA-bn!
All we can do is, enter another pronunciation for IPA-hns! (Two IPA entries- will not it look odd?).
Moreover, since Swami Vivekananda is an international personality, we need a third IPA script too, since native English speakers or in European speaker adds ā at the end!
What do you think? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly this, but something similar discussion is going at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#deletion_of_local_names. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Back to IPA! I know that ब is used instead of व in Bengali. But thats what we are saying. This is Bengali pronunciation of the name. Not how Indian English speaker does it. Indian English speaker pronounces Vivek from Vivek Oberoi and Vivekananda in same fashion. Now ofcourse as you say we can include all different pronunciations. But thats what is being discussed at WP:INB. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you pronounce chauffeur or fiancé? Like an English speaker or try to follow the French pronunciation? Trying to adopt the native speaker's pronunciation is a creed. And for Swami Vivekananda the Bengali is the native language and Bengali is the correct pronunciation of his name! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC),

Narendra Nath (nor Narendranath)

According to biography of Vivekananda written by Tejasananda the name of Vivekananda is Narendra Nath (not Narendranath), see also Banglapedia article or Vedanta Society article, also Vivekananda used to sign his name Narendra Nath, we need to (I am going to) make changes! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Actually it was not so difficult as I thought, I had to make changes in 4-5 places only! And it is done! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ndash etc

This is correct edit. No need to revert this. ndash is needed in year ranges. And no need to spell "ndash", you can use "–" from "symbols" under "special characters".--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Swami Vivekananda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 11:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I'll be taking the review.

Opening comments

Looking good, save for a few small things:

  • There's a couple of external links in the main body text, which should be avoided.
Can you please mention the section(s)? I actually can't find EL in article body. I removed few months ago, but it seems I had missed one or two! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, they're interwiki links. I'm struggling to tie down a particular guideline on their use, but it seems some might be better done with information boxes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not really happy with the layout of the "As a wandering monk in India (1888–1893)" bump up the headers or remove them (or reduce their number) I think.
Changed to heading 3 (following other sections of the article)! --Tito Dutta ✉ !
  • If "Narenda" is a given name, why is he referred to as it t? Normally a family name would be more appropriate, but I'm not certain for Indian names. Also, there's rather inconsistent usage of names anyway which should be looked at.
Narendra Nath Datta– Ramakrishna and his friends used to casually call him Naren and generally he was referred to as Narendra or Narendra Nath before taking Sanyasa. Generally in India a person is not called by his family name if it is very common. Datta/Dutta is a common surname (even I have that surname). We have tried to follow reliable biographies here. Let me know if you think we need to change something! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I notice it changes half-way through. I'll accept "Narenda" before this, and "Vivekananda" after (make that consistent); it should also not change before it has been explained (which it does by a couple of paragraphs at the moment). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Light bulb iconBIn lead (or beginning of a section) we have used the name Vivekananda. Before 1887 his name was not Vivekananda, so in these sections sub section we have tried to use the name Narendra/Naren (Ramakrishna did not know that his name is going to be Vivekananda). But after taking Sanyasa (when his name was changed), we have tried not to use the name Narendra. Let me know what you think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You use "Vivekananda" before his change of name, e.g. Vivekananda and other Ramakrishna's disciples took care of him during his final days. You also use his full name "Swami Vivekananda" after this, e.g. Swami Vivekananda's ideas were admired by scholars.
Correct! I have made some changes in this edit. Do I need to add the name Narendra Nath Datta in at least one image captions of these sections like Swami Vivekananda (Narendranath Datta) and other disciples of Ramakrishna in Baranagar Math, in 1887? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done Will add in other images (where it'll be applicable) very soon! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 DoneI have revised all images of the article. In all images Pd-old or Pd-1923 is added! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Swami Tathagatananda, a senior monk of the Ramakrishna Order, and the Head of Vedanta Society, New York wrote as follows:" no quotation follows?
 Done I have added a quote from his essay from Vedanta Kesari June 2011! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference #143 needs more information, might be the case with others

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 DoneAdded reference from a page of Government of Gujarat website! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

  • Examine hyphen/dash usage as a point of grammar.
  • ... Shri Pranab Mukherjee has approved in principle Swami Vivekananda Values Education Project at the cost of 100 crore with the objectives like – 1) Involving the youth through competitions, essays, discussions and study circles. 2) Publishing Swami Vivekananda's complete work in different languages etc. is a non-encyclopedic tone.
 DoneDeleted honorific Shri, slightly rewritten, removed numbering, added INRConvert template, tried to use encyclopedic tone! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Have a look at refs #1, #23, #67 (you don't have to keep their errors), #81, #150.
Can you please specify the problems with these references? In this version, I have fixed #67 (which in the given version is #69). For #23 (which remains #23), I have added publication date (any other error?). For #1 and #81 (which are #1 and #83, respectively, in this version), what needs to be fixed? I do not know which is #150 in the present version. Can you please tell which ref (that was #150 before) you suggested to fix and why? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • During his journeys he is referred to as "he" rather than with his name rather too many times.
(edit conflict) Done Will revise once more! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ref #37 doesn't support the text in front of it (it lacks several details); if this information is verified by the latter citations then I don't see the need for #37?

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC

Question? After doing a short study I am little bit confused here– this article clearly tells Vivekananda first heard about Ramakrishna in his English class. in this article,, it is mentioned – professor was explaining trance. In a newspaper article we can find Hastie told Narendra to visit Ramakrishna in Dakshineswar. He was lecturing on the poem, the given citation in article shows that. The only thing which has not been mentioned anywhere that Hastie was lecturing on poet's poet's nature-mysticism. Any comment? Do we need to collect citation for this? Or we can read these words! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Put the references at the end of the paragraph and remove any information not contained in any of them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done. --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Ramakrishna.jpg doesn't list a death date for the photographer. On what basis do you believe life+70n applies? The 70 takes us back to 1941; the photographer would have had to be young and lived a while but it's not into certain zone. Perhaps a different route of copyright would be appropriate? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed license to PD-1923 and PD-India (this media was published before 1923 for PD-1923 and before 60 years for PD India) --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 citation needed tag I've added.
 Done Added this --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you have a thorough check for small problems like 1888,Vivekananda and [144] [145]?
I have done it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Date styles are inconsistent throughout (D/M/Y, M/D/Y).

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Using a script I have changed all dates to DMY formats in one click. The worst part of this script is it changes everything to DMY (including reference dates, access dates, and image filenames). A image file was broken after using this script, I have corrected in this edit. I think it is okay now, please have a look. --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have double-checked dates in quotes too, because there were chances this script would modify dates there too. I have not found any problem! I have checked MOS:TIES (British English) too, there is not any problem in spelling! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments

  • I've given the article a copyedit and have a couple of questions. (Please look over the edits to ensure that they are correct; also I suspect you speak Indian English or similar and it may be useful to know where this differs from international English for the future.)
  • to whom the Swami wrote (and many others): "Swami" is a title, yes? Stick to Vivekananda, I think. We generally avoid titles, and certainly where like this they are unaccompanied with the name.
  • supported the Math had expired: "expired"? Do you mean dead or did they merely leave or stop giving money?
There was a minor spelling mistake (Narenda>>Narendra), I have corrected! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I read the article Pranab Mukherjee but am unclear what a "Union Finance Minister" is. What is a "Union" position?
You can read: Ministry_of_Finance_(India)#Organizational_Structure! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Union government means federal or central government.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple of citations needed where I've put the tags.
This was a badly written portion, there were multiple external links in article body which we had to remove. The two institutions mentioned there should not be primary examples. I have removed these two lines, in (near) future we wish to start a new article on "Influence of Swami Vivekananda", there we'll add a paragraph or two on "Influence of Swami Vivekananda on education and educational institutions" --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The paragraph at the top of "Works" needs rewriting; probably. I doubt you'll be able to source it the way it's phrased at the moment.
I tried to re-work the paragraph. Added some context. Added a reference for four types of men discussed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I removed the "Chronology" section as superfluous; many other articles could be represented in this format and it's not been done. Also there were some statements that didn't appear in the main text, and some which were misleading by reason of their brevity as part of the chronology (whereas they were well explained in the text).
It was inspired by Winston_Churchill#Ancestors and another chronology which I can not not remember at this moment! Chronology might be helpful for long biographies, because many people don't like long essays and they read this summarized chronology.--Tito Dutta ✉ 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't easily verify the sources. Could you type up the couple of lines from a book for two references? I've had a few problems with close paraphrasing in topics like this and therefore I have to check. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Please mention which information you want to verify, I'll try to do something. In Swami_Vivekananda#Bibliography, you'll get some full books, that might be helpful! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review

Reference 10 (same as #3, by the way):

  • Article: "His father Vishwanath Datta (the only son of Durga Charan) was an attorney of Calcutta High Court."
  • Source: "His father, Biswanath Datta, a lawyer by profession, ..."

Conclusion: elements missing; name suggests that a different source was used. If so, it should be added at the end of that sentence, since this source is given there. (No close paraphrasing concerns.

It definitely needs some attention. I do not have Amiya Sen's book. Have you found it online? See this discussion, where we discussed o the spelling. I can source/re-source every word of this line very easily. But, I have doubt on the spelling Vishwanath Datta or Viswanath Datta? I'll try to check it in some notable biographies and source (and if necessary correct it) ASAP. --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have given a support there! Ref 09 can also be used as a ref there (page 01-02). Let me know if I need to use it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Biswanath Datta is definitely wrong spelling! I have confirmed Vishwanath Datta spelling is correct. We have this person's signature too, but, we have not added it in article, because father's signature is completely irrelevant! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference 131:

  • Article: "Vivekananda died at ten minutes past nine p.m. on 4 July 1902 while he was meditating. According to his disciples, this was Mahasamadhi."
  • Source: "On the morning of 4 July 1902, when he entered mahasamadhi, Swami Vivekananda... only after his passing away..."

Conclusion: element missing (time). Ditto above.

Same above! Will add sources within few hours! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added this page as citation there! It supports that Swami Vivekanandadied at ten past nine on 04 July, 1902! But, it does not support that his disciples called it Mahasamadhi (Mahasamadhi word is mentioned there, but it is not told, his disciples called it Mahasamadhi. I do not have book of Sen, if it is not told there, we need to make some more changes there! --Tito Dutta ✉

That's two out of two with verifiability problems, can you please fix these and have a look at some others that might be troublesome? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One more:

  • Article: "Due to the close association between the two, both have their headquarters at Belur, near Calcutta. This was the beginning of an organised social and religious movement to help the masses through educational, cultural, medical and relief work."
  • Source: "... This was the beginning of an organized movement to help the suffering masses through educational, cultural, medical and relief work."

Conclusion: I don't understand the "both" part, so it was a bit difficult to verify that. The rest is WP:Close paraphrasing and must be avoided. You really have to go away and work through some others by yourself on this. I have checked three sources now, all problematic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! Both Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission! I don't know what is close paraphrasing in Wikipedia! The portion needs to be re-written! the reason of making Belur their head-quarter was not any close association, they had only that land at that time (so, there was not any other option), this is misleading, actually it is very difficult to summarize everything in 2-3 lines, we can write a long article on this. Vivekananda did not have money to buy land. Miss Müller etc donated money for Belur Math foundation! I'll try to make some changes after you help me to understand close paraphrasing. Also see the way it is written in Belur_Math#History! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've linked it above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
My point is that WP:Close paraphrasing tends to be a repeated thing in an article. I'd appreciate if you could act under your own steam and seek out and eliminate these sourcing problems, rather than wait for me to flag them up one-by-one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am/'ll be doing! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

This is a big task and I note that no changes have been made to the article in ten days in this regard. Sourcing/verifiability is difficult to add back in like this; it takes time. For that reason I'm failing the article. Feel free to renominate once these issues have been fully addressed – across the whole article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

for discussing the various threaths caused by maoist attacks.

yashrespected sir i would like to have your help in the english elecution taking place in our school.in which the provided topic is maoist and their influence in morden india.kindly provide me the important and essential view points related to the topic. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushi shrivastava90 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Spirituality

The spiritual part of the article seems to be Wiki:NPOV night mare trying to fix up Shrikanthv (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) seems like the birth and childhood part has lot of puffery Shrikanthv (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Seriously !, during his childhood he went to maha samadhi, saw buddha and was actual reincarnation of lord shiva ! my god why he had to grow up at all Shrikanthv (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not all biographers are generous about samadhi in childhood. Sil sees it as a peculiar habit acquired from his family which earned him the title nutty Biley. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
have also removed his visions on Buddha, as it does not mention that this happend in his child hood Shrikanthv (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Visit to Japan

Do we really need this section? The visit to Japan was, practically, inconsequential. We can remove all those text (including the rather sentimental outpour against the worthless young generation). Just one sentence mentioning that he stopped at a few cities of Japan enroute US can be added as the initial sentence in First visit to the West section. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Meeting with Tata? Planning to make first steel factory in India? Travel from Yokohama to Vancouver is needed to included that information. See this for details. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
But meeting with Tata while enroute from Ykohoma to Vancouver is not mentioned in this section. The mention occurs much later in the article. We can rather add a sentence like, "Vivekananda visited several cities of Japan such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Yokohama, Kobe, and some places n China and Coanada before arriving at Chicago on...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, since it was in 1893, I can cover some part of it in that 1893 article too! I'll not add the quote since I have to add 5-6 American newspaper reviews in that article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swami_Vivekananda/Archive_2&oldid=1137213710"