Talk:Celibate Ascetics (Vairagi)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Bairagi is a caste of Hindus whose members follow the Visishtadvaita philosophy Propagated by Ramanuja, mostly popularized by Ramananda in North India, Dvaitadvaita philosophy Propagated by Nimbarkacharya, the Shuddadvaita philosophy Propagated by Vishnuswami, mostly popularized by Vallabhacharya in North India, Dvaita philosophy Propagated by Madhvacharya.[1]

References

  1. ^ https://ia800301.us.archive.org/2/items/HindiBook-shriBhaktmalByShriNabhaJi/HindiBook-shriBhaktmalByShriNabhaJi.pdf

Fraud article[edit]

This article is total fraud - bairagi as a caste refers to "bairagi" = Vaishnava renunciates whom became householder and thier seminal lineages. the article has worked hard to mask this and depict all Vaishnava sanyasi belong to a "Bairagi" caste - sanyasi by default have given up thier caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.250.255.218 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Probable corresponding Hindi article is [1] which doesn't have any sources. Having a touch time to establish credibility of this.

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No this article is not fraud. It is written on the base of historical records. Bairagi also known pujari, mahant, Vaishnav brahman etc. Gupta Ynr (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is swami and goswami same?[edit]

I don't think goswami should be added in bairagi article as they are different from swami. Dekosthaz (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Goswami is a Title Used by the Vallabha Vaishnav (Pujari of Nathdwara Temple) Present Goswami Of nathdwara "Goswami shri rakesh ji Maharaj" his successor " gusainji Vishal bawa ji" Gupta Ynr (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://radha.name/news/general-news/urdhva-pundra-vaisnava-tilak http://radha.name/images-gallery/different-marks-tilaks. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Based upon Historical Records[edit]

This Article is Totally Based on History Records & Reference. Please Check These References in the article. Gupta Ynr (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a complete mess & you keep making it worse because you want to push a glorifying view & you seem to be ignorant of most of our policies and guidelines. Please look at your own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there all these edits? I assume there is a disagreement about article content. If a particular edit is undesirable, please identify it and explain the problem in simple terms that an uninvolved passer-by can understand. I might be able to help resolve problems if we can focus on a small number of points. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, it is every edit made yesterday. In my case, I provided summaries. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Gupta Ynr's user talk page for yesterday. I am on mobile & providing different etc for a swathe of problematic edits is near-impossible ... but Gupta shows no sign of listening & has ignored warnings from others. They are pushing the glorification of the Bairagi community. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "different", read "diffs". - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I would need to understand a couple of precise examples before taking action. Could you pick, say, two egregious examples and explain them here. I would invite Gupta Ynr to respond and explain why the edit is justified in accord with WP:P&G. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made 3 or 4 edits with extended summaries for this purpose. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I go through the Hindi sources, I am starting to agree with the comments in the Fraud article section above. Despite Gupta Ynr's assertion there, the Bairagi do not appear to be a caste & there is increasing doubt about what they actually are, if indeed they are anything cohesive at all except in their own heads. The sources are being abused. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that sources are abused(although I am only reading English sources). Also, a number of sources classify them as a backward community.LukeEmily (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure it is at best a Vaishnavite sect, not a caste. Anyone can be a Bairagi simply by professing a particular faith, and anyone can adopt a name for any reason they choose (so, not all Swami's are Bairagis etc). But if Bairagis can succeed in persuading governments that they are a caste etc then they are more likely to get reservations, which is the aspiration of many Indian people because of govt jobs for life etc. Gupta Ynr seems to be on a mission to promote Bairagi in the way across a multitude of articles, making Wikipedia a means of legitimising the claim. It has happened before on WP & is one reason we do not consider govt reservation lists to be indicative of anything much. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Ynr, what the heck are you doing? Yet again, despite warnings etc, you are removing valid tags. There seems to be consensus on this talk page (not just this section) that the article has major issues. Fixing/validating the sources is a prerequisite to resolving those issues. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Ynr, you have been told very recently that Raj era sources are not reliable, so why do this?. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving up until Gupta Ynr is blocked. They are causing massive damage across a lot of articles, they know talk pages exist (they have even used this one), and seem to have no intention of collaborating while pursuing what is clearly a POV mission. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page needed[edit]

@Gupta Ynr: Why did you remove {{pn}} in diff? Your edit summary was "See references" but when I look at that reference I see a Google description of a book saying it is 1948 pages. A reference should specify where the information is found. That can be fixed later, but you appear to have repeatedly removed {{pn}}—why are you doing that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books/about/Kab%C4%ABra_ke_kucha_aura_%C4%81locaka.html?hl=hi&id=Sava3i869KEC Gupta Ynr (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Ynr, you are now adding yet more sources without page numbers, eg here. I am not even sure how you are ensuring that the sources refer to the people of the sext rather than those named at Bairagi people but it looks to me like you are engaged in a large amount of original research across a range of articles. In addition, I wonder if an academic source whose primary focus is on ceramics, as in this diff, is particularly likely to be reliable for the issue in question. Finally, is your reluctance to show page numbers anything to do with you only seeing "snippet view" on Google Books? We rarely accept snippet view because it lacks context, and that is likely to be a very significant issue here. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bairagi people[edit]

Among the many problems introduced by Gupta Ynr, it seems that a page move or usurpation at Bairagi people has caused its talk page to link here rather than to its own space. At least, that is how it appears on the mobile app. I have just gutted the mess at that article but can anyone fix the talk page issue? - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, Done. Fixed the redirect. Gupta Ynr, why are you removing sourced content from academic sources and quotes like [2] and [3] and [4]. You are also misrepresenting the sources Gupta Ynr in those edits. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Does this edit follow the source or is it, as I suspect, original research/based on Gupta's personal understanding. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misrepresentation of the sources. Two academic sources clearly say Shudra. I had put the quotes but he removed it. Please see this version.
Here are the quotes:
UC Berkeley press - Erin Patrice Moore - Jogi and Bairagi(Religious practioners, Shudra varna) ​[1]
William Pinch - Consequently, Vaishnava bairagis were drawn from the entire varna spectrum and included not only brahmans but many shudras[2] LukeEmily (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, he has removed all three sources (2 from University of California and one from Oxford Univ). Not sure, what is going on as he is not explaining his edits on the talk page.LukeEmily (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He needs to be blocked and an awful lot of clean up done. The disruption is horrendous and I have just noticed the same has been happening at Commons - see my comment at the end of this. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A famous historian said that the Ramanandi Bairagis do not entrance the shudra in vaishnav temples at the time of 16th century bairagi is warrior ascetics but in the time of Ramanand bairagi is a Ramanandi saint[3] Gupta Ynr (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right bairagi is drawn from brahman to shudra but only in the case of Ramanandi Sampradaya. But bairagi is warrior ascetic of four vaishnav Sampradaya. Ref. Peasents and monks of british india by william r. Pinch Gupta Ynr (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this book jaipur' ka galta sammelan Bairagi ki utpatti ka karan tha[4] Gupta Ynr (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gupta Ynr: In case you have not seen them, there are messages on your talk page that need your attention. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is only about nara village but in whole india india bairagi is different status Gupta Ynr (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Erin Patrice Moore (1990). He who Owns the Stick Owns the Buffalo: Gender and Power in the Study of Justice, Rajasthan, India. University of California, Berkeley. p. 81. Jogi and Bairagi(Religious practioners, Shudra varna): There is one Jogi and one Bairagi hosehold in Nara.
  2. ^ William R. Pinch (18 June 1996). Peasants and Monks in British India. University of California Press. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-0-520-20061-6. Indeed, Buchanan's remarks on religious practice in the Gangetic core, together with comments by other observers through the nineteenth century, indicate that Vaishnava gurus (and Ramanandis in particular) pursued a far more aggressive program of social and religious reform in comparison with their Dasnami and Nanakpanthi counterparts. Consequently, Vaishnava bairagis were drawn from the entire varna spectrum and included not only brahmans but many shudras.
  3. ^ https://books.google.com/books/about/Kab%C4%ABra_ke_kucha_aura_%C4%81locaka.html?hl=hi&id=Sava3i869KEC
  4. ^ Joshi, Prabhash (2003-01-01). Hindu Hone Ka Dharam (in Hindi). Rajkamal Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-267-0643-3.

Sitush (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavites and bairagis[edit]

I am trying to check sources while this article keeps flipping around but I am having all sorts of problems. Since there seems to be a reluctance to provide page numbers, I am having to read huge amounts & I am not finding obvious connections. Eg: the Alternative Krishna source cited for Swami Haridas in the list of people doesn't seem to mention bairagi in connection with him, although he does get a mention several times. Is there some assumption going on here that all Vaishnavite ascetics are bairagis? And, if so, is that assumption correct and can we please provide a reliably sourced statement to that effect? - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Ascetics are called as Bairagi. There are four Sampradayas of Vaishnava - Shri Sampradaya (Ramanandi Sampradaya), Nimbarka Sampradaya, Rudra Sampradaya - Vishnuswami, Brahma Sampradaya - Madhvacharya. Memebers of these four Sampradayas who follow Saguna Brahman philosophy, are considered as Bairagi. First time the term 'Bairagi' was adopted by Ramanandi Sampradaya of Vaishnava and Tulsidas was also member of Ramanandi Sampradaya so he was considered as Bairagi. [1] V.S.bhardwaj (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People can only be included here if a source actually says they are/were bairagi. We can't draw our own conclusions and I have yet to see you provide a reliable source that does the job. You need to revert yourself until you understand how things are done - this article is bad enough, and badly phrased in semi-English, without adding more to it. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Richard Burghart, Wandering Ascetics of the Rāmānandī Sect, p.374, History of Religions Vol. 22, No. 4, Devotional Religion in India (May, 1983), The University of Chicago Press

Vaishnava Ascetics of four vaishnava sampradayas are considered as Bairagi[edit]

Vaishnava Ascetics are called as Bairagi. There are four Sampradayas of Vaishnava - Shri Sampradaya (Ramanandi Sampradaya), Nimbarka Sampradaya, Rudra Sampradaya - Vishnuswami, Brahma Sampradaya - Madhvacharya. Memebers of these four Sampradayas who follow Saguna Brahman philosophy, are considered as Bairagi. First time the term 'Bairagi' was adopted by Ramanandi Sampradaya of Vaishnava and Tulsidas was also member of Ramanandi Sampradaya so he was considered as Bairagi. [1] V.S.bhardwaj (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not checked the source yet but if you are on sound ground then the opening paragraph is screwed up because there are actually 4 sects and bairagi isn't one at all - this is just a WP:DICDEF type of article about an informal title. Some might consider such to be a candidate for deletion. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are adding more sources using a variety of styles, which makes me think you are copying them. Are you reading the things? Please can you supply relevant quotes because they seem quite obscure. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Richard Burghart, Wandering Ascetics of the Rāmānandī Sect, p.374, History of Religions Vol. 22, No. 4, Devotional Religion in India (May, 1983), The University of Chicago Press

Page moves[edit]

This page has been moved more times than I care to count and has been badly edited probably even more frequently. Gupta Ynr and V.S.bhardwaj, I think we are reaching the point where both of you should stop directly editing the article & instead make proposals for your changes here, gaining consensus before applying them - you are creating quite a mess and it is hard to follow. Worse, the mess still doesn't seem to address fundamental points regarding the subject matter. In the case of the moves, the title very much depends on the substance of the article (not to mention a reasonable grasp of English) and that seems presently to be unresolved. We have guidelines for article titles, like pretty much everything else, and procedures for moving them. When an article is moved as often as this has been, WP:RM definitely applies. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article moves[edit]

There must be no further article moves unless there is prior consensus on article talk to support the move. That applies for at least a week until the following moves can be examined. Such moves are disruptive because they are difficult to follow and it is not clear that the article history is being maintained as significant copy/pasting has been occurring at the same time.

I think the following users have made the moves shown below. If there is a mistake or anything missing, please add it.

A related move to a different article follows.

If anyone has an opinion on what should happen, please add a brief explanation below. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bairagi is a caste But bairagi sadhu or vairagi is a term Gupta Ynr (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start at the beginning. Please will both of you read WP:COMMONNAME, try to understand it and then explain what, in your opinion, should be the first word of the article's title. Just saying it should be bairagi, vairagi, or indeed something else, will not be enough. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please will you both explain why this cannot simply be a part of the Sadhu article. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that after some frenetic and confusing editing, the two main protagonists aren't particularly keen to resolve the mess that has resulted. I am thinking this either needs to be blown up as a WP:COMPETENCE issue or just perhaps redirected to Sadhu. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do whatever you think is best. I will state for any onlookers that it is known that your edits would be based on reliable sources appropriate for the topic. I asked specific questions which have not been adequately answered. The first question was at "Talk:Bairagi (Ascetics)" which has been moved—see Talk:Celibate Ascetics (Vairagi)#Page needed. I followed that up at User talk:Gupta Ynr#General sanctions. A second issue is at Talk:Celibate Ascetics (Vairagi)#Page 374 in ref 2. I put off dealing with the problematic edits and responses because after another flurry of edits it appeared that the "Page 374 in ref 2" reference was no longer used, and I didn't see any new references without page numbers. I could easily have missed examples of those problems. Any further inappropriate responses will result in sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have removed the unsourced, poorly sourced and gibberish for now. Have also tagged a couple of things which, if not resolved soon, would leave this article as nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Our Sadhu article mentions the vairagi term, as does the Britannica source cited in this one (as a synonym), so a redirect seems the most likely outcome. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page 374 in ref 2[edit]

@Gupta Ynr: You should be discussing editing proposals on this talk page, not edit warring. Nevertheless, thank you for including a page number in this edit, namely page 374 of "Wandering Ascetics of the Rāmānandī Sect". However, when I look at that page I cannot see how it verifies the associated text ("Vairagi is a Hindu Sect who follow vaishnavism. Celibate Ascetics of Vaishnav Sampradaya are called Vairagi or Bairagi Sadhu."). Please fix the reference or reply here with an explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must know that the recluse monk and the Bairagi are different.don't confuse with monk with bairagi caste Gupta Ynr (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gupta Ynr: You must be able to communicate effectively in English at the English Wikipedia. Please quote some words from page 374 of the reference and explain what text in the article it is verifying. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Bairagi' term is used for two things. For Caste and Ascetics. There is two articles. First is about Bairagi Caste and Second is about Bairagi (Ascetics). I think there is confusion between these two articles.V.S.bhardwaj (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for a reference to be in an article is that it verifies some of the text in the article. This reference must be fixed or there must be an explanation of what words on page 374 of the reference verify what text in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Protect this page to prevent vandalism Gupta Ynr (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is likely to be done away with unless you and V.S.bhardwaj begin to collaborate. It is a confusing mess of a thing which doesn't have any encyclopedic use in its current form: poorly written, definitely an incorrect title, poorly sourced, uncertainty regarding what it's subject even is.
You are both mostly ignoring our attempts to make sense of this, the end result of which head-in-the-sand attitude is likely to be deletion. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gupta Ynr - a couple of edits you made at Ramanandi Sampradaya have now been reverted. You can't just insert supposed information about Bairagi at all sorts of places on Wikipedia without properly sourcing the information. In this instance, it wasn't just page numbers etc that were missing - you changed a statement in the lead section & in doing so you completely misrepresented the source which was already present, which doesn't mention Bairagi. Whilst English language ability might be an issue on this particular project, misrepresenting sources is going to be an issue on all versions of Wikipedia, eg the Hindi, Tamil and Malayalam projects. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celibate_Ascetics_(Vairagi)&oldid=1200727075"