Talk:Swami Vivekananda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

audio file of Swami Vivekananda's speech

hey, i am not aware of any recording of Swami Vivekananda being avaialble presently. Would somebody authenticate ? Ramashray 11:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm sorry, you lost me. Does that mean that the audio clip was authentic but distorted? --Goethean 19:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

libertarian socialist?

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)

Vivekananda was not a libertarian socialist! --vineeth 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Biography

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)

I see a seeming contradiction between this article and the article on Kanyakumari. In the latter article, the section on nearby attractions states, "Ironically there is no evidence of Swami Vivekananda visiting Kanyakumari. The religious significance has been a point of contention." This article, however, unambiguously claims that Vivekananda did visit Kanyakumari. Depending on whether there is or is not evidence, one of the two articles must be edited. Saileshganesh 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Ayyavazhi connection

It is very much possible that Vivekananda visited the Swamithoppe temple, but was he influenced by Ayyavazhi relegion? There is not a single mention in his lectures, writings, conversations, letters... about Ayyavazhi or any such faith. Had there been any such significant influence, Vivekananda would have been grateful enough to mention about it in any of his letters or conversations if not in his lectures. Advaita has been around in India for thousands of years and Vivekananda had learnt it well before visiting Kanyakumari. Also he had always maintained that Ramakrishna was his only Guru. Google gives two results for Advaita Philosophy of Brahmashri Chattampi Swamikal and that too this very article and a page about Ayyavazhi in wikipedia! And who is/was Dr. Poulose? Proper evidence should be provided before these arguments can be accepted. Wearing turban was a common custom those days in India, more so in north India than the south. Information about his wearing turban only after visiting Kanyakumari in the link provided may not be genuine. Small thing it may be, but truth should prevail even about such simple issues. - Srini81 14:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sri, The fact that Vivekananda only after visiting swamithoppe, wear head gear is a major claim among some of Ayyavazhi, particularly among old people.The old people says that their father had seen Vivekananda in Swamithoppe.In that time, during the late 19th century wearing head gear is a matter of pride and low castes were not alowed to wear that.But in Ayyavazhi Only with that one will be allowed in side the worship centers.It was ment by Vaikundar to propose that all people were kings to rule. I think that this fact is closely related to Vivekananda's way, Advaita. On the other hand on my point of view, in this matter of Vivekananda's head gear the reason preasented by Vedantha society is too hard to digest.In one of their book I read that he first worn it,by a suggestion from the king of Khetri, during a desert journey, and from that he found it more comfort and thereby continued.You might have heared about Vivekananda. Though he was a saint undoubtfully he was a man of extra-ordinary thought. And all my suggestion is such a skilled man dosn't do any thing without reason.

Also the main teaching of Vivekananda is to bring Advaita in practice or Practical Advaita. In Ayyavazhi the practice of wearing headgear, the worship in front of mirror are seeming match to practical Advaita. Then the philosophy of Ayyavazhi is mostly monistic which was similar to Advaita. Then the date which was presented on which Vivekananda visited Kanyakumari (24th December, Tamil month 'Margazhi- 9, saturday.)is the 16th day of the 'seventeen day festival', Thiru Edu Vasippu in Swamthoppe.(Thiru Edu Vasippu is the festival of melodiouse reading of Akilattirattu Ammanai and completing). Then with the headgear he went to Suchindrum Temple. There he was asked to remove the head gear. When he refused he was not allowed to enter the temple. So Vivekananda called Kerala, (This area is then the part of Travancore,Kerala) as 'tent of mads'. This is a proof that when Vivekananda leaves Kanyakumari he had gear in his head. Then the opinion of Vivekananda is, it is from a thought all the uiverse originated. In Akilam several times the same thing repeated that by 'destroying the thought' all will become one. Also, I've read many speeches of Vivekananda and found, many concepts of him revolves around the thoughts of Akilam, especially the concept of origin of time and place. All these created a deep thought in my mind that Vivekananda must be influenced with Ayyavazhi.

Besides all these few days before I found the book of Dr.C.Poulose 'Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal', about Ayya Vaikundar. He also noted that Narayana Guru, Sri Nilakanta Tirthapada and Tirthapada Paramahamasa were all the disciples of Atmananda Swamikal. But none of them were mentioned in Akilattirattu.

My suggestion is, the central theme the 'Practical Advaita'. I think in no other parts of India this is practiced. Though it was theoritical in advaita not practiced sociologically. But in Ayyavazhi, it was brought sociologically as religious custom. Then there is another practice in Ayyavazhi, that calling every one using the term 'Ayya'. For example,If any one visits one's house he will be welcomed as "Ayya please come, be seated." (This was to symbolise that 'God is all' or 'God in all'.) Though it (God in all)was very much theoritical in Hinduism, in Ayyavazhi it was practicalized. You might have known that, to bring advaita in practical is the major call of Vivekananda, especially on western speeches.

Then the head gear.Even though the practice of wearing head gear is prevalant in many other parts, that was not allowed or practiced in temples. Any one who want to enter the temples he needs wear a turban in his hip. He will not be allowed inside a temple with a turban in his head. But in Ayyavazhi the thing is reverse. Only with a turbun one will be allowed inside the Pathis and Nizhal Thangals. In the case of Vivekananda, if it was weared on following the tradition of those days he must have removed on entering the temple, and in Suchindrum they may not have stopped him and there may not have chances for him to call the land as 'Tent of mads'.

Then you asked that if Vivekananda was influenced by Ayyavazhi why he had not noted it in any speeches, letters etc. You might have known that the main claim of Vivekananda is, 'the religion of Hinduism is a set of beliefs and it was formulated by hundreds of greats and not like other religions, focus to a single person.'He hates the formation of new religions inside it. For example, for him Buddhism and Jainism were all sections of Vedanta. On visiting Swamithope he must have viewed Ayyavazhi on the background of Hinduism and not as an autonomous. Also the religious text of Ayyavazhi was given printed form only in 1939. So there is no chance to Vivekananda to view the source behind the Ayyavazhi and Swamithoppe, which place it as an independent one. He just view it as an offshoot of Hinduism. I think that if Vivekananda might have chances to view the source Akilattirattu Ammanai he won't consider Ayyavazhi as a section of Vedanta. Because it has it's own mythology, indifferent to Hinduism.

Then in the matter of Chinmudra I just placed the qoute from the book of Dr.Poulose. -வைகுண்ட ராஜா

I don't deny the possibility of Vivekananda visiting the Ayyavazhi temple but only doubt what you call it's 'influence' on him. People who believe this may be sincere in their belief, but sincere belief doesn't necessarily mean truth. It may well be a legend, which in due course of time came to be a strong belief among the followers of this faith. There should be clear distinction between legend, mythology and history. I don't want to get into useless arguments here, but take some liberty in editing this portion of text in the article, so that it is acceptable to all. The info provided by Polouse and his book is not convincing. Details like year of publishing of the book, publisher, or atleast the ISBN should be provided if at all this book is to be taken seriously. And unverified information from random websites cannot be a reference to contest popular belief. - Srini81 06:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Raja didn't find the ISBN. But here's the publisher's details:

Ayyavaikunta Nather Sidhasrama,

Marutvamalai,

Vaikundapathi,

Pottayadi - p.o,

Kanyakumari District,

Tamil Nadu.

The Distributors,

Aswathy Books,

Viraly,

Uchakkada - p.o,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695506,

Phone. 0471-211469.

We don't know if Vivekananda was or wasn't influenced by Ayyavazhi. It is one theory suggested by some that he was.

Raj2004 10:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we have more than enough proof that Dr. Poulose, and a number of Ayyavazhi adherants feel this way. If there is anyone who officially disputes their claim, he should also be cited. NPOV is the citing of verifiable POV, and I think it is clear, right or wrong, that this is a belief held and thus worth mentioning. Sam Spade 13:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the mentioning of beliefs held by Ayyavazhi people about Vivekananda. I only doubt the authenticity of information provided by Polouse, as User:Vaikunda Raja himself says that info in the book is not mentioned anywhere in Akilathirattu. Nevertheless, it deserves a mention in the article. Is it possible to provide the year the book was first published, as it would be interesting to know whether Polouse wrote it during the times of Vivekananda or if it is a recent book. - srin 04:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No, The book was published only in July 2002. I am not here to withstand backing the claim of some Ayyavazhi followers with this matter. I rise this issue here, only because my doubt about his influence, mathches the contents of the book of Dr.Poulose. I was taking effort to approach him for references, Thank You. - வைகுண்ட & ராஜா

I dont think it merits inclusion, because many would argue Ayyavazhi is a sect of Hinduism (no offense to anyone, Buddhism , Jainism and Sikhism figure in the same way). If its true it needs to backed up with quite a few sources.00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No the Book sourced(third) is a University release and so the view to be treated respectfully. - Paul 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rv of edits by 203.101.52.166

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)

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)

swami vivekananda and upliftment of women in the society

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)

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)

We are very thankful to you to provide us this information|

HI I ADDED A POINT ABOUT HIS PRIDICTION OF HIS DEATH

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).

Critisicm

Please don't remove the sourced section without prior discussion Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The `someone' who went crazy with the weasel word tags and the obnoxious demand for citations is a user named Shrao ([1] - talk page, [2] - 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)

Wiki Scroll

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)

Tall claim

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)

"Dab, to understand why Vivekananda is a major figure in Hinduism and India, you need to work on Indian history a lot :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.108.100 (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source needed to confirm cause, age, prediction of death of Vivekananda.

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)

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 Camoran^talk 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To me "scientifically proved" means "measurable by instruments". Feelings are therefore not scientifically proved, so let us erase all articles or sentences in Wikipedia where feelings are mentioned. Scientists have just discovered that matter and light are the same thing or have the same essence. Yogis have been saying for thousands of years that matter is a form of light, "condensed light".

True, advanced or realized yogis, (I mean not someone like Osho Bhagwan or the Maharishi rightly rejected by the Beatles), seem to know the body better than doctors, the mind better than psychologists and pychiatrists and the soul better than theologians.

But how is western man going to accept that we have a secret door in our brain that that they have not discovered that can make a human being see more than telescopes, microscopes or any instruments. Even though we have evidence that our "brain" can register something, feelings, that instruments cannot register. Or are feelings also an eastern superstition?

In my almost humble opinion the west has gone from one extreme to the other, as a captain suddenly noticing the boat is going too much to the right, changes course too fast, and ends up going too much to the left. From Middles Ages superstition to "scientific superstition". We are funny. Instruments are not the only source of knowledge. --Pedrero (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I think this section is sourced reasonably well and should be kept. Also well said Pedrero! Duty2love (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mahasamadhi is neither a theory,a concept, or a superstition. It is an experience. It can only be related by those who have experienced it. Unfortunately, words are totally inadequate. Sex is called 'the poor man's samadhi.' Well it should be. Imagine the sensation of an orgasm by a million if you can. Who knows what it is like to birth a baby, a 63 year old obstetrician who has delivered 3,650 babies, or an 18 year old girl who just has had her first one?

No one has ever found a direct method of generating this experience in terms of repeatability, which science requires before validating anything. Most people who experience it only experience it once in a lifetime. Nirvakalpa samadhi is not a terminal event. It usually happens on an involuntary basis. It can come when least expected. Let me be clear, the doubts of the ignorant have absolutely no power to contradict those who have had direct experience. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrocosmentalist (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:paul raj & ayyavazhi

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)-Bharatveer (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Link

Link added by anonymous user is being removed,

• Vivekananda: The Handsome Duckling Debunking

Reasons being: The article quotes from book by Sil, already included in list of books

• Swami Vivekananda: A Reassessment by Narasingha P. Sil ISBN 0945636970

Also, visiting brothel(sometimes plural in the article while single incident is narrated) and consumption of alcohol are the only things mentioned in the article. But in 19th century Bengal, prostitutes were also great artists and connoisseur of art visited their places for the purpose of listening to music and watching dance. In fact, many of the drama artists were from class/caste of prostitutes, Shri Ramakrishna watched many of those dramas. Notion of brothel in India during those days is vastly different from that of western countries. And hindu spirituality does not believe in "eternal damnation" for finite 'immoral' acts such as assumed debauchery. Ramashray

Mr. Geoffrey has written the book after stripping his own mind. Utterly illogical depiction of events. He seems to have delibrately chosen to hide facts and analysis and chose certain lines to arrive at some pre meditated conclusion. He seem to have purposefully left the context out of discussion. Not worth wasting time to read or write a

Neutral Point of View?

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)

You are right. I just removed a couple of adulatory comments. It looks better now. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No need to put attribute word Swami or swami on the name of Vivekananda in as per wikipedia rules we are not following this attributes e,g. mahatma gandhi - disambligation this title as a Mohan das karamchand gandhi- --selvam thamizh (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

reorganisation of material

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)

Discuss here

Please discuss here before removing cited information.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the removed material:

• • [3] This is uncited information and original research. This material has been tagged from 1 year.
  • [4] Rewords a WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL ("...was a renowned thinker in his own right" , "One of his most important contributions" ) and adds material from WP:RS ( Vedanta for the West, Indiana University Press ) that actually matters. Not sure why this was removed.
  • [5] removes another WP:OR and is a fails the reference verification. If one checks the citation ( http://www.masonindia.org/index10.html ) , it just mentions that Vivekananda was one of the "prominent Indians who were Freemasons" and does not mention anything about "Vivekananda also pleaded for a strict separation between religion and government". Also note that he was a Freemasson during college days and was not involved in of its activism.

Hope this clarifies. However, there is still some OR that needs to be addressed. --Leggette (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving to original page 'Vivekananda'

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)

Swami Vivekananda → 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)

I believe that "Swami" is an actual part of a sannyasin's name, not merely an honorific like "Sri" or "Srimati". So I would respectfully disagree with your proposal. Also, there are many other articles on sannyasins; looks like nearly all of them use the "Swami". Devadaru (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Though I am not against the use of the name "Vivekananda" with the prefix "Swami" per se, I would prefer the title "Swami Vivekananda", as usually the Swami prefix is added before Vivekananda (WP:COMMONNAME). Swami is a sort of honorific comparable to Saint (see Saint Peter etc.), as both tell about status of the individual. Swami is not however to other honorifics like Sri. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Per WP:COMMONNAME, see similar articles: Swami Rama Tirtha, Swami Dayananda Saraswati etc., Swami is usually a integral part of monastic name. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

Names in Bangla, Hindi

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)

I believe that is for the aid of persons who are not multi-lingual. Pratik.Mallya ^Talk! 20:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopen move discussion

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)

Strong Oppose Per Leadsongdog, titles should be as simple as possible without creating confusion - changing the article name would do just that. He is known as Swami Vivekananda (WP:COMMONNAME) and not Vivekananda. Another example would be Mother Teresa - if you change it to just Teresa it would create confusion as she is well known as Mother Teresa. Whereas I agree that self-proclaimed godmen articles should not contain such honorifics, there are genuine cases such as Swami Vivekananda. Maybe we could identify some means of deciphering this. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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 [6], which is hosted at Vivekananda.net of course, (not SwamiVivekananda.net).LeadSongDog come howl! 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 [7] 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 Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose He is known as Swami Vivekananda not Vivekananda.Swami is part of his Monastic name.Sankarrukku (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Oppose No question about dropping the 'Swami' per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, just like Peter, there have been and are numerous Vivekanandas in India, many of them in the same field. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As above, that's irrelevant, we have no articles on the other Vivekanandas.LeadSongDog come howl! 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Vivek. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I have stated my reasons here and elseshere (like Talk:Swami_Bhaskarananda_Saraswati). As per Common Name, generally, well-known monks are known as "Swami So-and-so", especially Swami Vivekananda. Moreover, "swami" is a part of a swami's name, not a mere honorific like "Sri". Devadaru (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, the prefix Swami is almost always used with his name.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support. In fact, 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%.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Comment - that is just the point - that is the name used by the west not necessary elsewhere. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)