Talk:Swami Vivekananda

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 compton^Talk 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)

Comments by Titodutta

Oppose I strongly oppose this unwanted and unnecessary request, and submitting some references References Official website of Ramakrishna Mission and spelling of the name: http://www.ramakrishna.org/sv.htm Belur Math Official Website and spelling of the name: http://www.belurmath.org/swamivivekananda.htm Person's handwriting and own signature: http://www.vivekananda.net/KnownLetters.html And most importantly, spelling of the name in India National Government's website- 1) http://india.gov.in/allimpfrms/alldocs/2539.pdf 2) http://india.gov.in/knowindia/freedom_struggle2.php --Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose Another Ref From Government Document I have posted some references from Indian Government website. One more. See the standard and acceptable name! More Reference India Government's documentation on National Youth Day http://india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allannouncements/8439.pdf --Tito Dutta (Talk) Oppose More Reference, The Name Indian Prime Minister Accepts And Uses- Swami Vivekananda Here is a speech of Indian Prime Minister from Indian Government Website. See, the name Indian Prime Minister accepts and acknowledges- it is "Swami Vivekananda" Another Reference, From Indian Prime Minister's Speech Indian Prime Minister's Speech http://pmindia.gov.in/lspeech.asp?id=1004 --Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Official Press Release From Government Of Assam Sorry for big letters below, but, I have written so much here, I need some big letters to highlight a point! The only thing, I want to point out by so many references that Swami Vivekananda - that name is accepted and used everywhere- officially, unofficially, by Government, everywhere. Only 'Vivekananda' does not make any sense. Now a press release from Government of Assam Reference Press Release Of Assam Government And The Accepted Name: http://assam.gov.in/archive_mar2010.asp --Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:34, 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)

• Oppose - Swami/Goswami/Acharya/Yogi/Saraswati/Tirtha/Das/Bapu are considered part of name for Hindu monks - that's how they sign it even, e.g. the signature of Swami Muktananda. I would not think of them as honorifics. Honorifics are prefixes and suffixes like Sri Sri 1008, Maharaj, Tarkikacudamani, Prativadibhayankara, Padavakyapramanaparavarina, etc. Examples - Swami Vivekananda, Goswami Tulsidas, Vallabhacharya, Yogi Swatmarama, Satyananda Saraswati, Bharati Krishna Tirtha, Tulsidas, Morari Bapu. These people are commonly known by these names. Furthermore as pointed on another page, please refer the *relevant* policy which here is not WP:HONORIFIC. WP:HONORIFIC does not address Indic religious titles, the right policy to use is Wikipedia:Naming conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics. Nmisra (talk) 08:02, 29 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:

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)

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)