Talk:Ramanandi Sampradaya

The contents of the Ramanandi page were merged into Ramanandi Sampradaya on 17 january 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Hinduism Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Allens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 2 May 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Someone added a sentence to the article that dealt with Ramanandi surnames. I took it out partly because it wasn't cited within the article, partly because it was not a grammatically correct sentence, and partly because the place from where I think the sentence was taken was a Ramanandi yahoo group site . (As for the last reason, I don't believe that a yahoo group site qualifies to be in the reference list of an encyclopedia article.)

But I would not mind discussing this matter further with anyone who feels otherwise. --Raimmmmm 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there has been a recent merge into this small but interesting article. I may be able to add a few citations and adjust a few details. I may make the changes in the body of the article first and then supply the citation afterward, because the citation arranagement in the article now is minimal. If I am permitted a brief lag between adding the fact and adding the citation it would be helpful to my process. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a small cleanup of the article. I left some of the original unsourced material, flagged with "citation needed" tags. I will stop work now, but there is quite a lot more that could be added to this article. It is a wonderful group that deserves better understanding. The connection with Tulsidas alone makes the sect noteworthy. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the title of the article was changed to Ramanandi Sampradaya. I think the term sampradaya is not quite right here. Can there be more discussion before changes of this type are made? I understand that the term "sect" may have negative connotations to some, but it is very often used to describe these divisions. It is more common to refer to them as sects than as a sampradaya, which is a more technical term. There seems to be a lot of attention on articles now related to "denominations", "schools" etc. but the differences between these terms may not have been fully discussed. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In two cases the article text changed sect to sampradaya where that term was not used in the cited sources. To address the concern about the word "sect" I simply dropped it, since that more accurately reflects what the cited sources said. It is not wrong to call it a sampradaya, but my impression is that the more common way of referring to this group is simply as the Ramanandi. Buddhipriya (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally trust that you are the expert on this. My input is only provisional. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in anything except my own foolishness. When people claim to be experts on Wikipedia, run the other way! I may do more on this article in coming weeks because they are such a wonderful and important group. Thank you again for your efforts in improving this stub. Buddhipriya (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can expand this article fivefold (with citations obviously) within the next couple of days we can get this to DYK. If we are going to improve this article anyway let's not waste this opportunity. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more that I can contribute, with citations. Personally I try to avoid making too many changes to articles too quickly, as that can make it more difficult for other editors to keep up with what is going on. For that reason my process is often to make a few changes then leave the article alone for a week or so to see if others accept the changes. If so, I make a few more. I personally find the slower process more enjoyable. But by all means move at the pace that seems best to you! Buddhipriya (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article may be expanded, it would be good to reach agreement on transliteration style. Since this is a stub that is being built up from a small start, we have the opportunity to use a high-quality transliteraton style from the onset. My personal preference would be to use IAST consistently, but I recognize that other editors may prefer using IAST on first use of a term, with simple transliteration thereafter. If Wikipedia is ever to be seen as a useful source of information on Indic content it must eventually try to conform to the standards of language display for the field of Indology. For example, it is not possible to accurately reproduce many citation to the literature unless correct transliteration is used. That is why I always try to encourage more use of accurate transliteration. My views on this issue are detailed at User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use IAST consistently then. I am not very good with diacritics, but I learn quickly. If you could convert terms in the article, as it is right now, into IAST I'll make sure my future edits reflect the correct transliterations. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on this, so let's see if other editors may prefer other approaches. I will add diacritics when I see them used in the sources I cite. Due to time limitation I will probably add things very slowly over coming months. Please feel free to work at whatever pace you prefer. No need to be limited by me. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following cited material was added: "The majority of Hindu immigrants to Trinidad and Tobago belonged to Vaishnava sects such as the Ramanandi. Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago currently practice Sanātana Dharma based on the teachings of Ramananda.[19]" I do not have the source available. Did it actually include the phrase "Sanātana Dharma"? It seems unlikely to me that this contemporary expression would have been used in a academic historical source. If it did not appear in the source I would prefer to rephrase, as this expression is a contemporary way of referring to these issues. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source and yes it uses the phrase "Sanātana Dharma". It's not actually a historical source. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this. I am sure you are correct, but for me the link goes to a page that Google Books says cannot be viewed. Regarding the issue of rewording around the phrase "Sanata dharma", would you object to that? I think the main point being made here has to do with the sectarian affiliation of the Hindu immigrants to that region. The phrase has political associations that may not be needed to make that point. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article had the following sentence added, which is certainly true: "The scholars also disagree on Ramananda's connection with Ramanuja." In fact there was a schism between the Ramanandi and the Ramanuji which I can document. I have a particular source on library order that will be helpful for that. The issue points to the difference between talking about a "sampradaya", which puts emphasis on lines of teaching succession, and a sect as a distinct ethnic and religious group. The schism between these groups went directly to issues of lineage. Talking about the groups as distinct socioethnic groups does not require reaching agreement on the (reputed) lines of succession. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and add content based upon your source. I also wanted to add another paragraph on the historical revisionism that occurred in Ramanandi in the late 19th and early 20th century. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]