Talk:Rambhadracharya/Archive 3

Title?
What should the title be? Avenue X at Cicero moved it to Rambhadracharya. However, we do find that we have articles like Swami Vivekananda, where Swami is also a Title. Actually Acharya is also a title and there is no consistency e.g. see Ramanuja but Vallabhacharya. So, should the page be under Rambhadracharya, Swami Rambadracharya (name used by English media), or Jagadguru Rambdharacharya (name used in official site and university)? Nmisra (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The move should had been discussed on the talk page, i am moving it to previous title. If editors choose any other title, i will move it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer Jagadguru Rambhadracharya as the title. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Vibhijain, lets resolve this here before moving since it is a GA nominee. There is mixed usage being followed, e.g. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (four honorifics), Muktananda (none), Sivananda Saraswati (Dashanami name) and Swaminarayan (none )(the last being a good article). Most of the articles begin with the complete name including title. Nmisra (talk) 13:00, 28 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 moved - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jagadguru Rambhadracharya → Rambhadracharya – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) First up, Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Also, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya generates 133,000 results and Rambhadracharya generates 316,000 results. Above all, Rambhadracharya, in his official website, writes his name as Rambhadracharya with Jagadguru just as something small that someone would put before his name like "Mr." or "Sir". Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: A GA review is initiated - Talk:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya/GA1. If this article is moved, please move the review page as well so that the GA links are not affected. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the university name uses jagadguru, also except the header, each page of the official website uses Jagadguru. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the English prison service uses Her Majesty's Prison Service. That doesn't mean we move Elizabeth II to "Her Majesty the Queen. Elizabeth II." Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As said by mike on the talk page of Swami Vivekanand, WP:HONORIFIC can make exceptions. I think Jagadguru Rambhadracharya finds overwhelming use in sources. I recall a recent discussion at Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Michael changed his stance there. What do you say now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The applicable guideline is for Indic titles and honorifics says that exceptions are allowed for people who are widely known by a name or title. Google for Prabhupada shows 2,130,000 results while that for A. C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada shows 483,000 results but the article has the latter title. Given the university name (JRHU), official site URL and the use in third-party biographies (Nagar and Dinkar), I would support Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. Nmisra (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Can anyone report on what the majority of the sources (not official, because they'll obviously use honorifics without exception) use? If there are some sources which use Rambhadracharya, then I'd support the move, deeming it not enough to make an exception to HONORIFIC.  Lynch 7  13:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Important sources like 7, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 45, 101-106, an award 130, and many more do not use "Jagadguru", and I think we cannot overrule WP:HONORIFIC (I say this at the risk of sounding too lawyer-like, but still.. )  Lynch 7  14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common practice in Hinduism and India. Let us not try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to redefine existing practices of a billion people. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support name change, suggest Swami Rambhadracharya: Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Times of India (in one instance), The Hindu, Press Trust of India (as in DNA), Government of India (Sahitya Akademi Awards), the Lok Sabha (The Office of Speaker), WebDunia, K. K. Birla Foundation, Navbharat Times, Jagran (in one instance), Mid Day in one instance have used the title Swami instead of Jagadguru, which is a sectarian title and every head of the Ramanandi sect becomes a Jagadguru by default. I would suggest a more neutral "Swami Rambhadracharya", as used by these references. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do suggest a move, why not only the name. As Swami is an obvious honorific. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:50, 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. Also, the neutral Swami is used by English media as well as other organizations including Government of India. Also, the Ramanandi sect also use it as "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya", where Jagadguru Ramanandacharya is the honorary title denoting his position as a head of the sect. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, Swami or Jagadguru sounds more like POV since it denotes a higher level than others. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the final decision be, the decision should be made as per relevant policy, not on the basis of it sounding POV to you. WP:HONORIFIC does not deal with Indic religious titles, the right policy to use is Indic titles and honorifics. Almost nobody outside ISKCON calls Prabhupada as A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and it may sound POV as well with three honorifics (A.C., Bhaktivedanta and Swami). Nmisra (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Rambhadracharya (spiritual leader) on the lines of Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), primarily because even Swami is not used almost exclusively (on the lines of Mother Teresa or Swami Vivekananda).  Lynch 7  17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) is titled thus to distinguish him from Ravi Shankar the sitarist who has the same name and precedes him. No such situation here so Spiritual Leader is not required IMHO. Nmisra (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that it would be an unnecessary dab.  Lynch 7  11:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I prefer Swami Rambhadracharya, I have no opposition to Rambhadracharya (read No support to Rambhadracharya either; Neutral to Rambhadracharya) per se.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference in decreasing order is Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, Swami Rambhadracharya and Rambhadracharya. It's only a URL and first line in article can be Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, e.g. Bill Gates is the title and William Henry "Bill" Gates II is how the article begins. Having said that, decision should be in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. Nmisra (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case the first line should have the full title. I would prefer the full: "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the opening sentence, however i think it should be Dharmachakravarti Mahamahopadhyay Shrichitakuttulsipithasvara Mahakavi Prasthanatrayibhashyakar Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya.  ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that all these titles are used together. The official site just uses

"Jagadguru Rāmānandācārya Svāmī Rāmabhadrācārya" [IAST original]. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Google Results Irrelevant Here that should be considered
Avenue X at Cicero said Jagadguru Rambhadracharya generates 133,000 results and Rambhadracharya generates 316,000 results. By elementary logic, the result holds true for any two words. Search for word X and word Y separately and each one of them should give more results than when you search for "X Y". In set theory we say, n(A intersection B) <= n(A) and n(A intersection B) <= n(B). Nmisra (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. What would could do is search for "Rambhadracharya" excluding "Jagadguru". That would be more meaningful.  Lynch 7  11:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are only a few book and English news articles, so I did a Google Search in English, as per guidelines under WP:COMMONNAME. Here are the results in decreasing order of hits. As pointed on Talk:Swami Vivekananda In absence of a policy on Indic/Dharmic names and as per below results which are valid criterion as per WP:COMMONNAME, the current name of the article should stay. Nmisra (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason "Jagadguru Rambhadracharya" is so high is due to two reasons: 1. the wikipedia article is named "Jagadguru Rambhadracharya" and all wiki-mirrors replicate this. 2. The name also appears in institution names founded by him: Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Seva Sangh, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Shikshan Sansthan. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article and mirrors also have the word "Swami" at several places, which would be excluded by the search "Rambhadracharya+Jagadguru+-Swami" (second row). About the institutes you are correct though. References in Nagar (2002), the most comprehensive work on Rambhadracharya are usually as "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya". Either the current title or "Swami Rambhadracharya" should work, both names are commonly used. Nmisra (talk) 21:31, 31 August 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.

Invalid ISBN

 * Citation has an invalid ISBN, and the book does not appear in WorldCat. If you have a copy of this book, could you please correct the ISBN? Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Typo. The correct ISBN of the set of books is 978812671358-5 and not 972812671358-5. I will correct the same - the ISBN can be confirmed here (Google Books has got the wrong title, the citation has the correct one). Nmisra (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for pointing out the error. Nmisra (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed simplified mark-up for poems
Here is a simplified mark-up that I am suggesting you consider using for the layout of the poems: Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with this change. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to remove the background colour and border? Or how about having the same background colour as in quoted verses in articles on other poets, e.g. William Shakespeare? Also, does this structure break with floating images (this is the reason why I replaced the original multicol with current table). Nmisra (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is the standard structure used for poems, then please go for it. Nmisra (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Sanskrit name
Redtigerxyz recently removed Guruji's sanskrit name from the infobox. I agree with it partially but I feel Hindi name can and should be included in the infobox as the documentation for the infobox illustrates (it uses Swami Vivekanand as an example). We should also discuss whether Sanskrit should be included in the box. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, Hindi and optionally Sanskrit name may be included - I see indic name for Ramkrishna Paramahansa also. Maybe we can have Hindi and Sanskrit in smaller font in same line as Bengali and Hindi are for Vivekananda. Nmisra (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both should be there. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Devanagari (Hindi preferred) is enough IMO. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But he has got sahitya academy award for sanskrit, so we can include that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, both languages used Devanagari script. I would prefer Sanskrit, since his primary contributions are to Sanskrit, but this isn't a big issue, and I'd be fine either way.  Lynch 7  09:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use IAST instead of Devanagari, but it will be a little weird. There seems to be a consensus, so i am adding both hindi and sanskrit, as the discussion will proceed, we will decide whether to keep both or just one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Works
I think the Work section is too big, i think making a article like Adi Shankara bibliography will be helpful. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WOuld help. Nmisra (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is done now. Nmisra (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vallabha Acharya??
Vallabhacharya was not the previous Jagadguru Ramanandacharya. Please remove that. Nmisra (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But source 97 says that हरिद्वार से आये आचार्य चंद्र दत्त सुवेदी ने कहा कि प्रस्थानत्रयी पर सबसे पहले भाष्य आचार्य शंकर ने लिखा और अब वल्लभाचार्य के छह सौ साल बाद जगद्गुरु स्वामी राम भद्राचार्य जी ने लिखा।. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which means just that the previous Sanskrit commentary on Prasthanatrayi was by Vallabhacharya, it does not say Vallabha Acharya was the previous titleholder of Jagadguru Ramanandacharya. In fact the Pushti Marga leaders have the title of Jagadguru Vallabhacharya. Nmisra (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But all those who have written Sanskrit commentary on Prasthanatrayi are given the title. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, the infobox gave the impression that Vallbha Acharya was the previous Jagadguru Ramanandacharya, which is not true. Nmisra (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence on
"Influence on" in the Infobox seems to be WP:OR and I suggest its removal. The praise of people like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Somnath Chaterjee et al is interpreted to be an "influence". Influence is much more than considering a person praise-worthy. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, the whole field should be removed from the infobox. If one can cite a source for the same, they can be added later. Nmisra (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that as per on Swami Vivekanand. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 06:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nmisra and did the same. This is a GA and should adhere to rules in a stricter sense. Swami Vivekananda may also need cleaning of that field. While Aurobindo considering Vivekananda a spiritual mentor (changing his life, influencing his philosophy) implies "influence", someone praising Vivekananda just as a great man who changed the world (not particularly his life) may be a right person in the field. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?
Recently User:2over0 moved the article to Rambhadracharya. There were 2 supports for Rambhadracharya, 1 for Swami Rambhadracharya and 3 for Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, so i think the move is unnecessary. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Arguments weight more than votes. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but I don't think consensus was there for the move. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not for you alone to decide.  Lynch 7  13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not doing that, just giving my opinion. ;) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree it is not democracy but who decides the merit of the arguments? The discussion was in my opinion, inconclusive - a similar proposal on Swami Vivekananda has not been implemented yet. I thought the most merit was in the argument of Redtigerxyz that it should be renamed to Swami Rambhadracharya. The GA reviewer and the copy editor from the Guild did not have any issues with the title. 2over0 could have shown some "Wikiquette" (for lack of a better term) by informing of his decision on the talk page before making the move. I expected this since even small changes to structure (footnotes, sections) were first discussed before they were made. Nmisra (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The closing admin (2over0) has followed "Wikiquette". He is not meant to inform of his decision on the talk page before making the move. Never have I seen any admin do so on any earlier move discussion. It is up to the closing admin to decide on the arguments. The GA reviewer and copy editor are supposed to be concerned about the name change. A proper name is not a GA criterion and the copyeditor's job is to make the article error-free in prose. About Swami Vivekananda, the popularity (COMMONNAME), the non-sectarian nature (universal use) of the name and the clause of acceptable use of honorific WP:HONORIFIC were accepted as valid arguments. You may approach the closing admin to elaborate the arguments he deemed valid. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move II
not moved. According to WP:HONORIFIC, honorifics should generally not be used in front of a name. While there are are exceptions to that rule, insufficient evidence has been presented to overturn the move closed a couple of months ago. --regentspark (comment) 00:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rambhadracharya → Swami Rambhadracharya – Since Nmisra (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:HONORIFIC is not explicit about Hindu monastic names.
 * As per WP:COMMONNAME: Swami Rambhadracharya is commonly used as mentioned by Redtigerxyz in the previous move discussion.
 * Oppose. 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." This applies to all cases; if we added that it applies to "Hindu monastic names, Jewish rabbinical styles, Christian pralacies, and Islamic titles of respect" that would weaken it; somebody would argue that it did not apply to secular Hindu titles, or Hawaiian peerages. This means virtually always, as shown by the fact that Father Coughlin (who is much better known by title than by forename) is at Charles Coughlin. This is not the case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad - I should have been more clear. I meant in this case WP:HONORIFIC is the general policy and Naming_conventions_(Indic) is the specific policy, which says widely known as opposed to virtually always. In case of a generic and a specific rule, the specific rule should apply. Exceptions are made for Indic names in case of Guru Nanak (and other Sikh Gurus), Swami Vivekananda, Sai Baba of Shirdi (GA), and Meher Baba (GA), where Guru, Swami, Baba are considered by some to be titles. By the way, even Pope Pius XII (FA) uses a title, even though quite a few references in the bibliography section simply use Pius XII. Nmisra (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic this article should be at Giridhar Mishra. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A cursory look at many references used shows that Jagadguru is not used almost exclusively ; not enough to make an exception to WP:HONORIFIC anyways.  Lynch 7  06:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposal is for Swami, and not Jagadguru. Most references and Internet resources rarely use the name without Swami or Jagadguru. Nmisra (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. In that case, there isn't enough consistency in the sources ;) .  Lynch 7  08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I will support rename to Swami Rambhadracharya since it is use in many sources and also in in many cases in the books written be him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Times of India, The Hindu, Press Trust of India (as in DNA), Government of India (Sahitya Akademi Awards), the Lok Sabha (The Office of Speaker), WebDunia, K. K. Birla Foundation, Navbharat Times, Jagran, Mid Day references use the honorific Swami, as well as the Ramanandi sect which use Swami in the whole title "Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya", where Jagadguru Ramanandacharya is the ceremonial title of any leader of the sect. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: For the same reason why I requested the last move, and, the result concerned is Rambhadracharya with Swami, without Jagadguru, which, is not impressive. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I would support anything like Jagadguru Ramdhadracharya or Swami Rambhadracharya per WP:COMMONNAME. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Title should follow Wikipedia policy WP:HONORIFIC not newspapers. Also self-written sources are not WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I strongly agree with the statement of Vaibhav Jain and hence support this move. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)