Talk:Swami Karpatri

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no one of such name or existance please delete this thread.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.8.66 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The link [1] has following information: "In the meantime, Gyanananda, the Mahamandal, and members of the Kashi Vidvat Parisad had decided to ask Swami Hariharananda Saraswati (popularly known as Karpatri Swamiji), a popular and powerful Dandi (*footnote: in fact, the most influential Dandi in India at the time, e.g., see Tripathi, pp.64 and 224), to accept the post. Karpatri, however, had, the year before, begun an organization called Dharma Sangh to fight for Hindu principles and so, being busy with other matters, he declined. However, before declining he offered his help in selecting a suitable candidate and recommended his own guru, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (later to become famous in the West as the guru of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, once guru to the Beatles and Mia Farrow). Given the influence of Karpatri, and the quickly acknowledged suitability of the candidate, Brahmananda was duly installed as Sankaracarya of Jyotir Math that same year." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.23.197 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Swami Karpatri ji's works

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Why was the book Marxvad aur Ramrajya deleted from Swami Karpatri ji's works? It was linked directly to the authorised publisher's page of the book, not to spam. - Mukt (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC).

Mukt, if you have links from reliable sources such as books and newspapers/news sites then you can add. Please do not add links from book stores.DBigXrayᗙ 07:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, the link from online store of the publisher of the work ought to be sufficient to establish the authorship of the work. Even if you believe that the citation is improper (which it isn't as per WP:AFFILIATE), there is zero rationale to delete the name of the book itself from list of author's works. Just put a note that better citations are needed. - Mukt (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC).

Look Mukt, you have already said it once, and I heard it. You must note that per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we cannot add all the books that he has written over here. If you can find reliable sources reviewing or talking about it, then you are welcome to present those links here for me to review. If you cannot find any link then those books are not worth writing about. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote those books or to help his publisher sell his books. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying DBigXray, that adding even a single work to the biography of the person being biographed is so excessive that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE? What is the point of having the article then? And what indeed is the point of having wikipedia itself? If you want to justify your bad editing decisions, kindly come up with some justification that stands scrutiny. Meanwhile, I am adding more details about the book and with more references. I doubt your neutrality here. If the content is needed to be removed, I have two requests: first, get it done my some other editor after having him or her go through this entire discussion; and second, have the fewest number of words deleted rather than running a dumb bulldozer over everything. Thanks. - Mukt (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC).

All I am saying is in order to add anything to any Wikipedia article, you need to have a WP:RS source saying the same. This is a basic requirement for adding anything here. your sources are not RS and unless you cannot find one, you cannot add it. If you want to understand how to proceed now, read WP:DR. You can doubt me as much as you like to your hearts satisfaction and then read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This is the third time both of us have repeated the same thing and don't expect a further reply if you are unable to share a reliable source. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Twitter Source

An IP editor used a tweet ([2]) as a source for the statement 'Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati, the 145th Govardhan Peeth Shankaracharya of Puri, Odisha, is an eminent disciple of Swami Karpatri.' Normally, tweets cannot be seen as very reliable sources. But per WP:SELFSOURCE, and since I see nothing suspicious about the authenticity of the tweet, I'm letting it stand. If you disagree, please discuss here before reverting.--Jose Mathew (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There are thousands of Disciples of Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj. Please explain why we need to mention all of them in this page. Does Gandhi Ji's article mention all the disciples of Gandhi ji ? Also Please give a better source than twitter. --Guy Foxx (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Gandhi, which is a former WP:FA, this is a stub article. To improve this article, more content is needed. Please do not remove any content unless you doubt the content's veracity ( WP:INTREF ), and twitter accounts are valid WP:SELFSOURCE as per WP:RS. - Mukt (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that I am trying to improve this article and bring it to WP:FA. I have already done many improvements. And I need your kind help to improve this page. Wikipedia rules require that we have to give a reliable source for added information. This is mandatory for WP:V purpose. SELFSOURCE says that "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." This tweet is not from the person, but talks about 2 third parties. This is not acceptable SELFSOURCE. Also you will need to explain, why this information is needed to be included into this article. A valid reason. What you wrote above is not a valid reason to add this. --Guy Foxx (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The twitter account in question is the twitter verified official account of the math he is the current head (Shankaracharya) of. - Mukt (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

... but not directly from this person the claim is about a third party. So it is not acceptable as a SELFSOURCE. Please approach WP:RSN if you disagree with me. I am waiting for the answers to the remaining questions that I have asked above. Why this information is relevant to this article? Please do not restore the content without a reliable source, after the content has been challenged by another editor for lack of sourcing. If you revert me again, then I will be forced to report your edit warring behavior. --Guy Foxx (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The person in question, and the math he heads, are the reason for renewed attention to Swami Karpatri at the moment. - Mukt (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please approach WP:RSN to get a larger consensus on this twitter source. You can ping me from there. I disagree with you and there is nothing more for me to add to this thread. --Guy Foxx (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hindu code Bill section

In a series pf multiple edits by @Guy Foxx:, bulk of the article from Milli Gazette has been copied almost verbatim in the Hindu Code Bill section and that part now reads unacceptably like an opinion piece rather than any encyclopedia. Note that the main article, Hindu Code Bill, already exists. Besides blatantly violating NPOV, the manner of taking bulk of matter of a single article from a media source could raise copyright/licensing issues. Kind fix this. - Mukt (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The content has been written by me in my own words as much as possible. Only the quotes have been copied verbatim as they are ought to be. If you think that there is scope for more improvement in copy editing, then kindly point those exact sentences below. We can discuss them and rephrase the lines so that both of us can reach a consensus version. The Article on Bill goes into a deep dive on the topic, while this subsection only focuses on the part played by Karpatri. Both are acceptable in their own rights. If you think there are NPOV violations, then you will have to be more specific and point those exact lines below, so that we can take a closer look and resolve the concerns. There are no copyright issues. We are well under the limits here. --Guy Foxx (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I do think that you should be more careful with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing since the wording matched too much with the original source. He opposed the bill for many reasons but I think we should avoid expanding on the reasons since 3 paragraphs (or 2 paragraphs) are enough for now in accordance with WP:DUE. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Srijan, I am glad that you have joined hands to help in improving this article. Please understand that HCB was the magnum opus of Karpatri Ji Maharaj, and hence it is entirely WP:DUE. His quotes help the reader in understanding his views on this important issue. These short quotes do not count while checking for copyrights. As for the rest of the lines, I have taken care to keep it in my own wording, however if you feel more should be done, then I would request you to point those lines that are in conflict with WP:CLOP below for me to fix or please fix this yourself by appropriate copy editing. Kindly do not resort to WP:CENSORSHIP. I have made some more copy edits in the article. Guy Foxx (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

HCB is only the part his opponents have focussed on, and that is why you'll easily find WP:RS citations for that. Refer to the section on 'Deletion of Swami Kapatri's works' above - that the community here doesn't want to add his main published works to the wiki article. - Mukt (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt, I must clarify that I am not an opponent or critic of Karpatri Ji Maharaj. I am here to improve this article and with your support hopefully I would be able to bring it to WP:FA standards. I believe you will agree with me that he gained pupularity due to his work on Anti-HCB committee. Wikipedia probably would not even allow us to write an article on him, had he not participated in HCB agitation. So let's thank his opponents for talking about his work. I think the HCB section is more or less complete for now and covers all major points that is needed. Let us focus on improving the other sections. For that we would definitely need WP:RS. I have read the section above that you pointed, it also mentions the same concern about lack of WP:RS. Guy Foxx (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all you should better abide by WP:BRD and stop restoring the content which has been disputed here and secondly you should avoid quotefarming quotations. You are expected to engage in editing which involves no copyright violation or close paraphrasing. Don't call out on others if they are pointing out the serious flaws. It appears to be your personal view that this was his "magnum opus" when he is known for other things even better. Accusing me of WP:CENSORSHIP isn't going to allow you to cherrypick his views on HCB. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't allege other editors of WP:CENSORSHIP unless censorship is indeed occurring. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have any good reasons for or against the content, Share it here on the talk page and I would will be willing to lend you my ears. Please don't waste your time if you are here only to pick up a fight. Guy Foxx (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already shared them. Look above. I note that I never wrote the message from your talk page which you have pasted on this page. It was unwise of you to paste the because this page is not about discussing your conduct but improvements related to the article. See WP:TPG. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have started the thread below to discuss the specific concerns. I expect a reply on the topic and not on the contributors. --Guy Foxx (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be pertinent to remember that article talk pages are not meant for discussions about behaviour of other editors. They are meant specifically to discuss the article and how can it be improved. - Mukt (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of 2 Quotes of Karpatri by Srijanx22

• Karpatri quoted from Yagnavalkya smriti which according to him mentioned "if the wife is a habitual drunkard, a confirmed invalid, a cunning, a barren or a spendthrift woman, if she is bitter-tongued, if she has got only daughters and no son, if she hates her husband, [then] the husband can marry a second wife even while the first is living." Karpatri did not clarify whether the scripture provided similar rights to the women.

• Karpatri had warned, "As is clearly laid down in the Dharmashastras, to forcibly defy the laws of God and Dharma very often means great harm to the Government and the country and both bitterly rue the obstinate folly."

References

Srijanx22 has twice [3] [4] tried to censor these 2 quotes from Swami Karpatri, claiming it is WP:quotefarm. These two quotes are central in understanding the viewpoint of Karpatri and why he was opposed to the Hindu Code Bill. 2 quotes are not excessive, and it is obvious to me that this is a blatant attempt to CENSOR opinions of Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj because Srijanx22 feels they are not showing palatable opinions. Please understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and 2 quotes dont make an article Quote farm. By claiming Quotefarm Srijanx22 is massively exaggerating to justify a blatant attempt to CENSORSHIP. I request Srijan to self revert and resotre the 2 quotes failing which I would be forced to seek admin intervention to prevent this abuse of editing rights in censoring content from Wikipedia. --Guy Foxx (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Karpatri vs Swami Karpatri

One of the editors here is repeatedly using Karpatri when he/she wants to refer to Swami Karpatri. I'd like to put on record that the two do not carry same meaning. Perhaps the confusion is that Swami Karpatri is a name, with Karpatri being surname. That is not the case. It is a unique title which became synonymous with a particular person. This usage is inappropriate and somewhat similar to, for example, using just Bahadur instead of the full British Raj title Rai Bahadur - half the title doesn't refer to the same person. If one really wants to refer to Swami Karpatri in a different way, I'd suggest that usage of alternative names in WP:RS sources be consulted, or simply use appropriate English pronouns - they serve the purpose excellently. - Mukt (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics and also WP:HONOR --Guy Foxx (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If this were applicable here, the name of the article wouldn't have Swami in it. - Mukt (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If you agree with me then I am willing to move this article title to Karpatri in line with the policies listed above.

This [5] refers him as करपात्री जी and not Swami Karpatri.

this [6] and [7] says Karpatri Maharaj and not Swami Karpatri.

This [8] says Karpatri Park, and not Swami Karpatri Park.

This [9] says Karpatri Chowk, and not Swami Karpatri Chowk.

So it should be clear that the person's name is Karpatri and the rest Maharaj, Swami, Ji etc are Honorifics. --Guy Foxx (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is quite clear that that Karpatri Chowk and Karpatri Park do not refer to the person being discussed but to some public garden(s) in Chhatisgarh. As for using Karpatri ji or Karpatri ji Maharaj, I have no objection to these usage as alternative way to refer to him. But note that none of these uses just Karpatri for Swami Karpatri. If you research deeper, you'll also find him referred to as Dharma samrat Karpatri ji Maharaj, etc. In any case, it is evident from your own citations that the person is never referred to as Karpatri. As indicated earlier, the word karpatri has different meaning and is actually a non-person Hindi/Sanskrit word. - Mukt (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on this thread is not about how you or me should address him. We are dicussing how Wikipedia should address him, after it is clear that only Karpatri is his real name, which is used along with several flowery honorifics such as Dharma samrat, Maharaj, Swami, Ji and has to be dropped following Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics and also WP:HONOR. It is enough to show that he has been referred to by reliable media as Karpatri Ji instead of "Swami Karpatri Ji" to prove that Swami is not his real name but a honorific. If you do not have any policy based objection, then I will proceed to rename the article.--Guy Foxx (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The real name is Har Narayan Ojha. If you wish, rename the article with that name. - Mukt (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right about his real name. What I actually meant was "common name". There is no policy that says Article need to be named by real name. Article are generally named as per the common name. People dont know him by "Har Narayan Ojha" so I dont agree with using this as title. Naming policy as I linked above, only wants us to drop the Honorifics, rest of the name can stay. Swami is not part of his name, so I proposed that we should drop it. I take it that you have no objections to renaming the article as Karpatri. --Guy Foxx (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The policies you have cited is not universally implemented on Wikipedia. There are hundreds of much more notable articles than this one where honorifics are customary. Take this protected article as example. The grounds of why a similar exception shouldn't be made for Swami Karpatri, even though the reasons are similar, are not apparent. - Mukt (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They are implemented. I dont know why Queen has that title. You can ask on Its talk page. This page is not the right place to discuss other articles. There should be strong reasons for seeking an exception, which I think are not available here. Claiming exception because there are some articles is not a good reason. As per the policy, Indian Swamis, dont have Swami in the title. We will have to add Swami every where and delete that policy if we start giving such exceptions. --Guy Foxx (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not discussing that article or even interested in it. I gave it by way of example. And this example is not a one off exception. Hundreds of pages that receive much more attention exist that can be given as example to support my point. Kindly note that the style guidelines in question are not something that improve this article, or make it more accessible, or readable. - Mukt (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Swami Karpatri Maharaj.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Lock the page

Please lock this page after rechecking so that nobody edits it in a bad manner Hinduhindu108 (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please protect to prevent vandalism

Protect the article Hinduhindu108 (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)