Talk:Swami Vivekananda/Archive 1

message: hey,
i am not aware of any recording of Swami Vivekananda being avaialble presently. Would somebody authenticate ?
Ramashray 11:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good that Calvinkrishy removed the link! I recount one funny experience of a monk of the Ramakrishna Order regarding the 'Voice of Vivekananda'. He was presented with a CD supposed to contain the 'original' voice. The moment he heard it attentively he remembered that he had heard it before. It struck him that there was one cassette of N Vishwanathan who had read out some selected lectures of Swamiji. This was brought out during the Centenary commemoration of Chicago Parliament of Religions in 1993. He played the CD and the cassette simultaneously and lo! both had omission of one para from the lecture of 27th Sept, 1893. Not only that - in narrating the story of Frog in the well, Vishwanathan had expounded in a little dramatic way by modulating his voice, Swamiji's lecture also had the same style! Wherever Vishwanathan had pronouced the word 'often' as 'often, Swamiji in the CD also had the same pronounciation! More over before Swamiji's lecture begins, there is an announcement in female voice. The written down records of Parliament of Religions show that there was no female announcer at that time! It appeared to our monk that the new CD has been produced by increasing the speed of the lecture and adding 'noise' level so as to appear as ancient one. Vishwanathan's cassette is still available for sale from Udbodhan Office, Kolkata.Swami Vimokshananda 18:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, you lost me. Does that mean that the audio clip was authentic but distorted? --Goethean 19:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  no Goethean, what Swami Vimokshananda ji is telling is, the voice is not of Swami Vivekananda; but may be the modified version of the reading of Swami Vivekananda's speech by N Vishwanathan. Ramashray 07:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  audio file of Swami Vivekananda's speech 

message: Vivekananda was a libertarian socialist at heart? Please explain this? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vivekananda was not a libertarian socialist! --vineeth 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  libertarian socialist? 

message: I felt this article about Vivekananda was incomplete without his biography. Hence I've added his biography. This presents well known facts about him and I wanted to keep it simple. I've also retained the previous material and moved them into relevent sections. Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, let's talk about it here. - Srini81 07:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vivekananda's visit to Kanyakumari has been well documented as a fact in his biographies and other places. --srini 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: The edits replaced 'Died' with 'samadhi' which resulted in the template not being functional - so had to fix it. Have placed the reasoning on the user's talk page too. Shushruth 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! But there is a significant difference between mere samadhi and mahasamadhi. Generally the death of a purna jnani is not considered death because it refers to the mere physical body. A knower of Atman merges himself with Atman which is what called mahasamadhi and in that process leaves the body, which we ordinary mortals think death. However the term Died in the infobox is applicable universally throughout the wikipedia biography pages and hence it is better to retain the term. 59.94.73.42 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv of edits by 203.101.52.166 

message: just wanted to know whether swami vivekananda had to do something with the upliftment of women...anyone knows the answer....?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/
125.23.58.135|
125.23.58.135]] ([[User talk:
125.23.58.135|talk]]) date.
::See Sister Nivedita -RegardsBharatveer 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Swami Vivekananda definitely promoted education and upliftment for women and spoke against traditional practices like Sati. One reference - "Talks with Swami Vivekananda" published by Adavaita Ashrama -- Amit 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  swami vivekananda and upliftment of women in the society 

message: I read his profile and liked it much i was having a information to share with u which is quite intresting that vivekananda before hand predicted tah he will die before age of 40 years.
Thanks for Reading this.
best wishes.
Abhishek Bhardwaj
abhi3486. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abhi3486 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI I ADDED A POINT ABOUT HIS PRIDICTION OF HIS DEATH 

message: Please don't remove the sourced section without prior discussion Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of criticism, someone's really gone to town with these 'weasel words' tags etc. etc. My feeling is that many of these instances are un-called-for, and obviously they're unsightly. If these sections are so controversial would it really be that hard to re-write them for added neutrality or whatever? To me, the overall impression as the article stands is that someone has a big problem with the article saying anything vaguely positive (however objectively accurate) about Vivekananda, but is too lazy to do anything constructive about it - even leave a note about it to elaborate their misgivings on this Talk page. --Oolong 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The `someone' who went crazy with the weasel word tags and the obnoxious demand for citations is a user named Shrao ( - talk page,  - summary for the edit in which the user added the many weasel word and citation needed tags). With all these tags, the article appears unpleasant to look at or go through. Many of the citation needed tags are unnecessary, I think. I can still fill in most of these citation requests/demands, but that will have to wait for at least a month since I'll be having my exams starting on the 15th of this month and not ending till mid July. Could somebody please do something about these tags? -Vishruth 23:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisicm 

message: I just added a scrolling bar to the reference and external links bars. Please do not revert this edit. Thank You.
Thedeadmanandphenom 02:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Scroll 

message: User:dab, Please discuss here why you feel that the sentence "He is a major figure in Hinduism and India" is a tall claim.-Bharatveer 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tall claim 

message: Mahasamadhi is not scientifically proved. Such superstitions are misleading to common reader. Hence 'mahasamadhi' theory of vivekananda is proposed to be deleted. Also the prediction about his death needs reliable source. The wikisource page which was cited as source does not exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahasamadhi is a very important concept of Hinduism and not a superstition and it cannot be omitted just because scientists haven't proved it because religious concepts are seldom proved scientifically. I have restored the death section with a reliable source. --Mankar Camorantalk 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This section now has a reliable source. -- vineeth (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this section is sourced reasonably well and should be kept. Also well said Pedrero! Duty2love (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Source needed to confirm cause, age, prediction of death of Vivekananda. 

message: Please see http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/swami-vivekananda/notes.html. From this "Dr. Poulose in his book Advaita Philosophy of Brahmashri Chattampi Swamikal (Ayyavazhi Publications), says that Atmanada Swamikal was the disciple of Ayya Vaikundar and Atmanada Swamikal learned the Marmavidya in Sidha vidya and ghecherividya (Chinmudra) from Ayya Vaikundar and Atmanada Swamikal further taught all these vidyas to his disciple, Sri Chattampi Swamikal. The book also says that when Swami Vivekananda arrived in Ernakulam, Sri Chattampi Swamikal taught this Chinmudra to him."
:Dr.Paulose merely speculates that Swami Vivekananda have met Chattampi swamikal.(AFAIK , no other historian nor any other verifiable source exists). His statement that Atmanada swamikkal was "guru" of Shree chattampi swamikkal is wholly inaccurate because there exists  multiple written sources completely describing shree chattampi swami's life. According to some of these sources( http://www.geocities.com/guruforum/Thycaud-Ayya-Swamikal.htm), Chattampi swamikal had learnt spiritual lessons from Sivaraja Yogi Thycaud Ayya Swamikal alias M. Subbaraya Panicker (1814-1909) ( No connection to ayyavazhi stuff).So accordingly; even if paulose's statement is assumed to be correct, in the context of this article ,only chattampi Swamikkal needs to be mentioned . -Bharatveer (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:paul raj & ayyavazhi 

message: This article does not convey a neutral point of view towards its subject. Its tone is adulatory, if not worshipful, and does not match the tone of a typical Wikipedia article at all. Please: less praise, more facts. The encyclopedia-memorizing anecdote is particularly embarrassing. Facetious Nickname (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I just removed a couple of adulatory comments. It looks better now. --Mankar Camorantalk 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might look better, but it still doesn't look good enough. There should be cites for all important points, and the tone needs to become way more neutral. If no scholarly references exist (this is unlikely) the article should be stubbed. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I am new to this article, however not new to Swami Vivekananda. Reading this article for the first time and having some knowledge of his personality, I did not get the feeling that it is too adulatory. Could you pls point out specifically which section seems to deviate from WP:NPOV? Also I noticed many of the reference links pointing to http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info are not working, the website seems to be down. May be its temporary, let's watch. Duty2love (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This site is backup, so I will leave it, however I will continue to look for more reliable sources as well. Duty2love (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Hmm, I am new to this rule, could you plsease tell which rule it is and why is "Pope" used here? Duty2love (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View? 

message: Few things are confusing in the article and there seems to be a improper flow. For Ex : "Birth and Childhood" mentions about college & western education, where as this ideally belongs to the next section. Similarly the paragraph on "Narendranath's mother" should be moved up, after the line "His thinking and personality". Others please their ideas as well. I will try to fix these. Thank you. Haripriya63 (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganisation of material 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Swami Vivekananda →  — 'Swami' is an honorific.
Swami is an honorific added to vivekananda. The original article should be by the name and the name with honorific should be re directed.Wasifwasif (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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
* Support -- Can anyone prove that 'Swami' is a part of his name.? Swami translates to 'Saint' which is an honorific. Honorifics are against wikipedia. One can see the articles for 'Mahatma Ghandiji' will be titled as 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi'. and titles with honorifics will be linked to this page. Am not aginst using honorific. But that should be linked to the main page which shouldn't have any honorific acording to wikipedia. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage of "Saint" usually comes under WP:COMMONNAME. We have Saint Matthew, Saint Peter, Saint Joseph etc., not just Matthew, Peter etc., Another example from Islam is Hazrat Babajan, which was a title assigned to her later, though different from her born name Gulrukh, and this also uses the honorific Hazrat which is fine per WP:COMMONNAME. Hope this help. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: It is not justifiable that Others are using, so why not i?. All those honorifics mentioned above including Swami, Saint, Hazrat etc., should be removed. Its what wikipedia policy says. Sarabsethh (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to original page 'Vivekananda' 

message: Are the names really necessary in Bangla, Hindi? Swami Vivekananda could be given in Sanskrit/Hindi, and Narendranath Datta in Bangla. Since he was Bengali, why write the name in Hindi? If no objection, will revert... Devadaru (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in Bangla, Hindi 

message: The above (now closed) discussion missed 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 at the time of the above discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Vivekananda is red, while Teresa is blue. We do not have other articles about other "Vivkananda"s to disambiguate in the first case, but in the second case, we do have articles about other "Teresa"s.LeadSongDog come howl! 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW its blue - red was ur misspelling (its been there since 2004, redirect since 2008) There may be other Teresa's - however that is no reason to have an honorific in one of the article titles, my point is that there is a honorific in that title there as well as many other articles - and they are pertinent. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Typo fixed. But it is still a redirect, not an article. We don't redirect Bill Clinton to President Bill Clinton, but rather the reverse.LeadSongDog come howl! 08:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comparing a political title to a religious one. I dont think your getting the point - "Swami" is part of his monastic name, Swami Vivekananda - his birth name is not Vivekananda, it was Narendranath Dutta, its the name he is famous by (no one knows him as Narendranath Dutta - if he remained Narendranath Dutta there wouldnt be a wiki article on him today), therefore we refer to WP:COMMONNAME. I quote from the article "In the early part of 1887, Narendra and eight other disciples took formal monastic vows. Narendra took the name of Swami Vivekananda.[46]" Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm comparing a noun with a prefixed adjective to one without. If the adjective is not needed for disambiguation, it should not form a part of the article title. Otherwise, why not add articles to the name as well, forming "The Swami Vivekananda" as per , which is hosted at Vivekananda.net of course, (not SwamiVivekananda.net).LeadSongDog come howl! 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have got it all wrong. Swami is part of the monastic name. The website you refer to is not run by the Ramakrishna mission (Swami Vivekananda on Ramakrishna website) but a private one - such people will book domains similar to the name (btw per who is check swamivivekananda.com,net,org are all booked, possibly by squatters). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it has been linked in the bibliography for some time, and it clearly has the full text of the book. I don't think it is in question, is it? Certainly the link you provide lists many books calling him "Vivekananda". But perhaps you can furnish some citations that would contradict the present text at swami, or here (pp.220-226) LeadSongDog come howl! 04:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I can provide lists calling him Swami Vivekananda. RE:Swami - there is only one ref and that covers my point. With regard to book by Paramahansa Yogananda - I am not sure that is the right authority on the topic. per  Swami Vivekananda is the name he is famous by (WP:COMMONNAME). this (page 118) states "Swami is a title given to Indian renunciates rather than a name". This states Swami is "As a monastic title prefixed to the monastic name", "Any monk who has taken sannyasa (qv) is called 'svamin'". The title is part of the monastic name (as prefix). I am not getting into the discussion of whether "Swami" is a noun or adjective - all I am saying is the man was best known as 'Swami Vivekananda' and not just 'Vivekananda'. In literature he may be referred to as "the Swami" or just "Vivekananda" but that does not mean that Vivekananda is the name he is best known by. Further, it is part of his monastic name - as I mentioned earlier there are genuine cases where "Swami" needs to be part of the article title, maybe we need to form a policy on this. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: That assertion would need a citation to a wp:RS if it was relevant.  Note that even among the five Saint Teresa articles, four do not use Saint as part of the article name (just on the redirects). The fifth should be now is fixed.LeadSongDog come howl! 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: As above, that's irrelevant, we have no articles on the other Vivekanandas.LeadSongDog come howl! 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Vivek. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: That is simply incorrect, as shown by the use of the definite article. Nobody would refer to "the Narendranath Dutta", simply "Narendranath Dutta". Yet they refer to "the Swami" or "the Swami Vivekanandas". Using the definite article demonstrates that Swami is being used as an adjective in this context.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the definitely article as in "the Swami" defnitely determines it to be a noun, not an adjective. You don't say "the yellow" or anything like that but you do say "the saint". Munci (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: In a recent book American Veda by Phillip Goldberg, in the chapter about Vivekananda he is constantly referred to as that without the Swami.Oxford73 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - that is just the point - that is the name used by the west not necessary elsewhere. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reopen move discussion