Talk:Japamala

message: To be added after checking meru Andries 23:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While this is most common, there are other possible numbers depending on religion/sect--it doesn't have to be 108 as the article seems to suggest. I do not know enough about it, however, to edit the article and provide proper information, as in my particular sect of Buddhism, 108 is often used. If someone else who is more knowledgable wouldn't mind... --Somnilocus 03:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  108 

message: Currently the article is poorly sourced.  According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  In order to improve the quality of this article I request that we raise the bar on content quality by ensuring that any additions to the article be done in a manner consistent with that policy. Buddhipriya 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for sources 

message: I object to the restoration of the spam link section.  Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for general guidance on what should be considered for a link.  These sites do not cite any reliable sources and push specific religous groups.  They are inappropriate for this article. It is not "too harsh" to expect that policy on links be followed. Buddhipriya 09:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On articles such as this it just seems too much like 'nit-picking' to remove links because they are from specific religious groups. Who else is really all that interested in Japa for example, other than religious groups? If we give only cold, intellectual links (if they even exist in this context) then that's missing the whole point in my opinion. As long as enough links are given from a variety of sources, and they are not blatant spam, (i.e selling japa beads) then I really don't see the harm? The guidelines should not stop us from providing the reader with relevant information. Gouranga(UK) 09:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sites do not meet the tests for being WP:RS because they do not cite any reliable sources.  Hence they cannot be used to source the article.  Adding a link to a religious group is promotional spam.  All such links should be removed.  There could be dozens of such groups that wish to be listed, and some of the articles I have seen have been link farms for religious advertising.  We must raise the bar on source quality and get this article referenced using [[[WP:RS]], not web sites of this type. Buddhipriya 09:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that prominent religious persons, and their viewpoints on Japa Mala are at least as reliable as any other source in this matter. For example, what is wrong with linking to a webpage which list Sivananda Swami's advice on Japa and Japa Mala? This is a useful link and it does not detract from the article. Nor is it being used as a reference. I agree we should avoid spam, but on articles of a religious nature religious websites seem highly appropriate as long as they are directly discussing the subject matter. Gouranga(UK) 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we decide which teachers are notable?  If Swami X puts up a page somewhere, do we have to list it?  Why are bead stores listed? (http://www.thebeadsite.com/BBRS-01.html) That site cites no reliable sources whatsover and makes no claims of religious notability.  It is commercial linkspam. Buddhipriya 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website appears to be an information site only, although it does contain links to other commercial sites. I'm not saying we should list every site under the sun, but neither do I see the need of removing sites which might be of interest and are relevant. If an article becomes a gigantic links directory, then yes, pick the better ones out and remove the others - but otherwise what's the harm in leaving them alone? We both know that Swami Sivananda is notable, and the article reads as relevant - as with the others. Why worry about it? Gouranga(UK) 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to worry about it is that source quality requires WP:RS, and sites that do not quote them are not usable as sources.  Promoting commercial bead sites that have little or no information of value is linkspam.  Promotion of religious groups via Wikipedia is objectionable advertising.  Antyhing the EL section is subject to consensus.  Since I am objecting to the links, we clearly have no consensus.  Wikipedia is not a link farm.  May I at least remove the bead store? Buddhipriya 05:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to spam link section 

message: A thought, if the article :Rosary is not given the title Christian :prayer beads, or for that matter :Misbaha as Islamic prayer beads, then this article also should be moved to its actual term :japa mala. --Ekabhishektalk 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and support moving to :Japa mala, which is the common name anyways. First Light (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu prayer beads?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion