Talk:Narayana Guru

File:Narayana Guru.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Narayana Guru.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am planning to cut this article back massively unless some citations of reliable sources turn up soon. As things stand, the majority of it is hopelessly unencyclopedic. I'll hang off for another 2 or 3 weeks but after that, well, my editorial red pen will be taken to pretty much anything that is not cited. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Name, title, NPOV

Throughout most of this article, Narayana is referred to as "Guru", which, if I understand correctly, is a title, rather than a name, and adds to the hagiographic tone of the article. Per WP:HONORIFIC, I think he should be called only by his surname, after the first mention. Would that be "Nārāyana"? (I ask only because I am not very familiar with Indian naming conventions.) More generally, the article strikes me as more reverential than encyclopedic. Using his name, rather than "Guru", will not fix that, but it seems like a good start. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nārāyanan" is the given name and not the surname. --BudChrSch (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word Devan in the boldface reiteration of the title may be inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. It is a title given to a deity and adds to the hagiographic tone of the article.BudChrSch (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source

Can someone explain why Guru- The Social Philosopher of Kerala this is a reliable source? I note that the home page does not even function correctly, there is no indication of authority and the dedicated nature of the website concerns me - hagiographic etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We now have a heap of citations that are clearly based on a dependent (rather than independent) source. This needs to change and it needs to changes pronto, otherwise the cites are likely to be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Some recent edits were removed citing the reason that Tourism websites are not good sources for history. May not some credibility be attributed to the official website of the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala? If not, shouldn't the article be cut further short by removing other pre-existing paragraphs that appear to be reproduced verbatim from the same source? It may also be helpful to specify what other stuff seems not to be in the source. Thank you. BudChrSch (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

user talk page discussion about this copied to this page.

You reverted to your revision on Narayana Guru undoing ~6 editors and ~20 edits done over ~30 days. I see that you have re-inserted one of the two content addition I had done. Is this content and reference (from academic book published by Oxford Univ. Press) not to be retained? Particularly when that article is in need of reliable sources! Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a way to do it without breaching WP:NPOV then of course it can be retained. I was just about to try to find a copy of the book. What you cannot do is state as fact something that is disputed by reliable sources, and that is what had been done. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you need to abide by WP:CITEVAR also. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That book is secondary reliable source from academic publication. Can you please provide the reliable source it contradicts? I will abide by WP:CITEVAR. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion belongs in the thread I opened at the article talk page. As far as d.o.b. is concerned, there is already a reliable source that contradicts it, specifically pointing out that the suggested dates vary. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit made no changes to d.o.b. I will respond to the other concern raised on the talk page. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is odd stuff. What is a "middle peasant"? Why does being the son of one influence his following of Vedanta and his decision to teach etc? It makes no obvious sense. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see the source, either, so it may be that we'll need a quotation if the significance can be proven at all. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It conveys a simple/ordinary peasant. If 'middle' is not clear we may simply write "a peasant". It does not say that being the son of peasant influences his following of Vedanta and his decision to teach, that itself is an inference. In fact, with that edit I deleted the dubious "He appears in turn to have" clause that was not sourced inline, that has been put back when this content addition was reverted. Do you want me to provide a quotation (the content and reference stands deleted as of now)? It is referenced to a secondary reliable source of Oxford University Press and it does not contradict any other reliable source like you said before. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 00:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add the content without using the "middle" word as discussed here. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed these replies - got into stuff elsewhere. I'll take a look now. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:I tweaked it a bit and then looked to add an authorlink to the citation, which is when I spotted Jean Drèze. That guy has no training in the subject matter at all, from what I can see. As such, he is not reliable for this material. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Okay, no problem about that, but it does come from a publication of good reputation, he is an exceptional scholar in his field and no blemishes as such. Isn't that sufficient enough for a simple non-contentious addition? I know you have been around longer and perhaps know it better too. The intention is not to "argue". --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about it because, even today, literacy is an concern in India. Although there certainly were some educated poor people, the idea of a peasant being educated in any meaningful sense back then seems remote. I'll have to check on this, though, as I know that the Brits did encourage at least some education for some people. Can you read Dutch? I'm wondering whether @Drmies: might be able to help with a translation, just to make sure of the term that Drèze is using. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I made a few tweaks, but Dreze's book is published by Clarendon and it's called "Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives". (Actually, it appears to be an edited collection.) Why would this book be in Dutch? Or is there an article in it in Dutch? Note that I just corrected the very first citation in the article, where an essay in an edited collection was cited as if reference was made to a monograph. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies. There are, as so often, lots of problems with the article but as far as the Dreze source goes, I can't see it at all and the citation had "lang=nl" in it. Looks like I may have wasted your time, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• No apology necessary, Sitush. Good luck keeping Scotland--if you want it, your third-to-last colony. (I'm not counting Milton Keynes, of course.) Drmies (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: @Drmies:, Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen are the editors. "Dutch" was a mistake, it is in English. The content I had added falls in Chapter 4 titled "On Kerala's Development Achievements" written by V K Ramachandran. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. The citation should read {{cite book|editor1-last=Drèze|editor1-first=Jean|editor2-last=Sen|editor2-first=Amartya|editor1-link=Jean Drèze|editor2-link=Amartya Sen|chapter=On Kerala's Development Achievements|first=V. K. |last=Ramachandran|title=Indian development: selected regional perspectives|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Delhi and New York|year=1997|isbn=0-19-829204-X|page=309}}. I'll add that now and try to track down stuff on/by Ramachandran. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: thanks. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tourism websites as sources

I reverted here in part because a tourism website was introduced as a source. Such websites are not usually considered reliable for history and indeed they quite often take material from Wikipedia itself. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the source is not just another tourism website, but the official government website. Kindly consider whether your content removal has actually left the article any better than it would have been without it. BudChrSch (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Official government websites, particularly those in India, are not good sources. Political interference in historical revisionism, for example, is common. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

True indeed. However, what is in question here is such information as (1)the given name of our subject, (2)the names of his parents, (3)the number of his siblings, and (4)the names of some people in his life, such as his uncle and his teacher. The content removal is justifiable if any other sources is in disagreement with regard to these. Other points like what our subject may have studied as a student may be disputed. Also, there is a disagreement among the sources regarding Narayana Guru's year of birth. As such, it is improper for the article to proclaim that he was born in 1854. BudChrSch (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says that there is uncertainty about his birth year. As for the rest, just find a reliable source: it is difficult to believe that only a government website carries that information, and it is highly suspect if that is the case because it would tend to suggest that they've grabbed info from earlier versions of this article (that is not uncommon with that particular site, by the way). - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. I was wondering whether the biography by Moorkoth Kumaran would be considered a reliable source? BudChrSch (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing against using a source just because it is written in some non-English language, although see WP:NOENG for important info about how we handle them. That said, much has been written about Narayana Guru in English and we do generally seem to prefer English sources when they are available. I'd be wary of any biography that is effectively published in a hagiographic style, regardless of the language, and that appears to be likely in this specific case: Kumaran was no historian but he was a follower of Narayana Guru etc, which makes it pretty dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Which means what exactly? Is the book acceptable, or not? BudChrSch (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to use it for? - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To reinstate the aforementioned pieces of information.BudChrSch (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is the publisher? When? What is the ISBN? - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I wonder if it was due to the high quality of the source cited that you did not revert this edit? BudChrSch (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It should not surprise me that you are demonstrating yet more lack of clue. Take a look at my contribution history for 11 April, take a look at my general contribution history, and consider WP:DEADLINE. If you want to act like a petulant teenager, please do so somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Public acceptance, honours, and veneration

This is regarding this edit. Isn't the act of such a recommendation being made by a government worthy of inclusion under that title? It is, IMHO, a recognition by the Government of Kerala.BudChrSch (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This reinstatement seems odd to me. Governments recommend all sorts of things but unless something comes of the recommendation it is not usually worth noting. Did the Union Government accept this proposal from the Kerala government, or might it be considered mere posturing etc (which is very common). - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In reply to BudChrSch, the recommendation would be recognition if it was accepted. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I expressed it very badly. My point is that if the proposal is accepted by the Govt. of India, it would be a recognition by it. However, even if it is not, such an unusual recommendation should be seen as an act of recognition by the Govt. of Kerala. My intention was to convey a point similar to the one being made by the following statement (from this Wikipedia page):

"The film is India's Official Entry for the Best Foreign Language Film for the 87th Academy Awards, but was not nominated."BudChrSch (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So what? I don't even understand what that film-related sentence means. Now please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that "I don't... understand" (maybe even don't care to understand) is an argument used by Wikipedians to remove content. Since when has I become so important? Let others decide. I will abide by any decision that comes out of a serious discussion. BudChrSch (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"I don't understand" is not my justification for removal. I genuinely do not understand the connection or parallel that you are trying to make. Are you aware of the linguistic divisions of states? Regions within India are constantly battling for self-recognition or greater recognition and they do so through PR campaigns etc as well as through directly political processes. Trying to raise a favourite son to some national status is likely just an extension of that type of activity: the obsession with image and in particular with being "better" is an incredibly toxic aspect of Indian culture but shouting loudly about something means nothing in itself. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT

I have reverted this edit. I myself had made such edits on a number of pages recently, whereupon I was enlightened about the problem with WP:INDICSCRIPT by User:Redtigerxyz thus:

"There was no binding consensus about removing Indic scripts on Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism articles. WP:INDICSCRIPT is WP:Local consensus of Wikiproject India. Wikiprojects Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. were not consulted; also other countries/region like Nepal, Bengal, Bangladesh wikiprojects also need to be consulted. FA articles of both Hinduism and Jainism articles Anekantavada, Ganesha, Ahalya, Vithoba, Iravan use scripts and had them at the WP:FAC."BudChrSch (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what Redtigerxyz says: everyone else has been applying it to this type of article. Now stop your edit warring, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep your issues out of here. No one cares if you like the rules or not. And, I don't edit-war, for I have better things to do.BudChrSch (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think those ancient Hindu deities etc are a different ball-game. I've never seen anyone remove scripts from those, although I'm not terribly familiar with them. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"A different ball-game," you say? Now that's some good argument. This inconsistency in applying a policy is ridiculous. BudChrSch (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a policy. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. We've come full circle. BudChrSch (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

D.O.B.

People keep meddling with the date of birth, usually trying to change it to 1856. Please read the Pullapilly source, note that we use the words "circa" and "probably", and note that there are plenty of other sources that take a similar line to him, eg: this one. We could elaborate in a footnote but the preponderance of reliable sources (academic ones, indeed) is for 1854. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear why Pullapilly is being projected as an authority on this subject. From the declaration of his sources, this particular point seems to be made based on works of two other authors, whose credibility is not certain. Elsewhere in the same essay, he repeatedly cites publications by the S.N.D.P. Yogam, which seems to be totally certain that Narayana Guru was born in 1856 (see here).BudChrSch (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As I say below, it is not our role to question secondary sources. Have you read the diff that I mentioned in the opening post for this section? That is a Princeton University Press book and it pretty much reflects Pullapilly, who is published by the excellent BRILL outfit. You'll note in that diff that even his disciple, Nataraja, said 1854. I've no idea what the SNDP might say but I wouldn't directly trust them on the point: it might be something weird like a more auspicious year in some numerological sense and we really do not want to go down that road. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish I could express myself better. I am not questioning the author's choice of sources. My question is whether he is an authority on this particular subject. Even the essay being cited has to do with the history of the Izhavas, and not with the life of Narayana Guru. This seems especially significant when he cites sources projecting minority views and ignores the significant majority view. BudChrSch (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Narayana Guru is closely associated with the Ezhavas; the SNDP is closely associated. The Princeton source supports Pullapilly and even cites his disciple. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing now. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm arguing not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of providing more complete information in the article. The "Princeton source" clearly says that "there are differing opinions concerning his date of birth." All I am demanding is that we ourselves set the record straight in such a fashion, rather than unilaterally deciding in favour of one year or the other. That would be more in keeping with WP:NPV. As for your circa argument, it is too nuanced and too complex for the lay reader (remember WP:RF). I must admit that I (a "lay" person myself) did not notice the ca. until it was pointed out by you here. Most people also do not know what it implies. BudChrSch (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are citing another essay but at the end of the day, if people cannot read properly then we cannot help them all that much. We do say that there is doubt and I do say above that we could extend the information by using a footnote. We currently stress the preponderant view, which seems entirely appropriate. Equally, it is appropriate that we do not assert 20 August 1856 as being definitive, as you were doing. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For your information, it was not I who was making those edits. You will be glad also to know that I am completely opposed to making any kinds of assertions here. We are not historians, and (at least I) do not have any reason to support any one view point. All I want is the inclusion of all significant views. And by the way, I know I'm citing an essay (what's wrong with that?). Read it-it was written by some sane minds and makes some good points, like this one:

"If you find yourself defending something as it is the "academic standard" or because it is what you as an editor want, you know you're going wrong! Write for our readers, not for academics and not for yourself." BudChrSch (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Krishnan, Rama (29 August 2015). "Sree Narayana Guru : the Revolutionary Social Reformer". realbharat.org. Retrieved 2018-01-22. is not a reliable source for the D.O.B.?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. It is not a mainstream website, the author says "I am an engineer by profession. Writing is my passion. I enjoy writing, reading, travel, life, love, freedom and philosophy", which means he has no relevant expertise, and the article clearly shows that there is uncertainty among academic writers who do have such expertise. Websites are rarely good sources for anything related to caste. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Marriage

By stating that ...Cyriac Pullapilly says that he was probably married for a few years but "his worshipful biographers ignored this part of his life out of reverence for his later ascetism"., the article probably gives undue weightage to a tiny minority-view, thereby violating WP:RSUW. Please discuss it here. BudChrSch (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Pullapilly is a respected academic. You are citing an essay. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All right. You get my point, though? His respectability as an academic is not in question here. What I said is that the article is giving undue weightage to a tiny minority-view. Further, Pullapilly has declared the source for that claim on the very same page. It appears to be made based on the works of other people whose credibility is not certain. BudChrSch (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean no offence but I am wondering if English is your first language. You seem to be missing some subtleties here, as with the birthdate thing. Pullapilly says "probably", not "certainly". Nor is it a tiny minority view: there are other sources that say the same and it is not usually our role to question the selections that a respected academic makes (indeed, that is the entire point of using secondary sources). I have seen a source somewhere that said he tricked his mother regarding the marriage, twisting her words to suit his purpose and thus only seeing his bride "through the curtain" or some such symbolic thing, but the book containing that story was dreadful and very unlikely to be considered reliable.

If you want an analogy for Pullapilly's point, perhaps consider the marriage status of Narendra Modi, which was denied for years because people connected to the RSS etc deem celibacy to be a necessity. Similarly, celibacy for certain religious people is considered of great significance. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive my poor command over English. But again, I do not have any issues with what the cited author is saying. Whether or not he is certain about the matter is not my concern. What I was saying is that, considering the very large number of publications that take the opposite view, one or two publications taking this view should be considered a tiny minority. BudChrSch (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your command of English is very good and there is nothing that you have to apologise for. It just seemed as if you were missing the significance of a word. Whether we show the opinion given in other publications depends on whether they are reliable and to what extent they might help counter an opinion that marriage was "probable". If Pullapilly had said Narayana Guru did marry and another reliable source said that he did not then we would definitely need to show both. But since Pullapilly doesn't say that, the need is less evident. It would be helpful to know what sources you are considering (and, please, nothing from SNDP etc). - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is true that almost all other sources, even the ones by his "worshipful biographers," agree that he did marry. However, the "... for a few years" part is difficult, if possible at all, to come across. If you're asking me to show a book published by a big Western publisher contradicting Mr.Pullapilly, I'm sorry, I have none to offer. Not because every such other source is in agreement with him, but simply because there are no such sources (that I know of). BudChrSch (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your point in creating this section is merely to contest "for a few years"? If so, what would you rather it said? - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

To understand what I'm saying, you need to have some understanding of the system of marriage prevalent in those times in his community, whereby the bridegroom didn't have even to be present for his marriage. The various accounts of his marriage agree on the point that he was himself not present for the ceremony. Further, a significant section of the works on his life hold that he left his house before the bride was brought home, ruling out all possibilities of a married life together. To be neutral and fair, one must also present to the reader this view. As of now, we are giving undue weightage to a (most probably) minority view, although inadvertently. BudChrSch (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that particular procedure but the accounts vary and it was not the only possible ceremony. But we can say no more than the sources say. Whether or not he was present, the academics seem to say that he was regarded at the time as having married. Whether the marriage was consummated or the couple even lived together is perhaps moot but unless we have a source that says it was moot, we can't say it here and it isn't obviously even relevant. The interesting bit about "for a few years" is that is would appear to imply that the marriage ended for some reason or another, which could of course include the death of his wife - I've no idea what happened and so cannot elaborate on that.

Look, there are sources in the article and I've provided some others during our various discussions here. I'm not seeing sources that differ and that are also reliable. Until those turn up (and, yes, they may exist), we can't really progress. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I have made my point amply clear. Any further discussion on this between us will only serve to increase the length of this talk page. I'm leaving it here in the hope that future editors will consider whether or not this is an issue, and make edits (or not) in the best interest of the article itself and its readers. BudChrSch (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long before you decided to have another go, did it? And you did so without even resuming this conversation. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, it's ridiculous how you talk as if I'm someone who is hell bent on destroying the article and you are The One who saves the day each time I have a go at it. Look dude, aren't we supposed to write an article that reflects all the significant view points? Then what's your problem with the article saying what Moorkkoth Kumaran thought, or what Kumaran Asan thought? What's wrong with citing their own works for this? I did not cite them to make any questionable claims, did I? You seem to be making edits mindlessly, just for the sake of an argument on this page. BudChrSch (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are they significant? What does it add? Have you ever seen WP:SPA? - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, no. Now that you have shown me and I have read it, I doubt if you have ever cared to read it yourself. It says: "one must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." And, where exactly did I appear to you to edit for "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas?" Dear friend, I would rather be someone who adds one sentence to one single article than somebody who mostly only undoes additions to a wide variety of articles.

Why are they significant? They are significant because (1) they were Narayana's contemporaries who actually knew him personally, and (2) they represent the majority view point.

What does it add? It adds the weight that the majority view point deserves. BudChrSch (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not give much weight to the words of acolytes and disciples; Pullapilly, who was neither, covers the point. A similar scenario can be seen regarding the atheist vs Sikh argument for Bhagat Singh. I am on the verge of reporting you for tendentious editing. It's either that or a lack of competence, while the fact that you went away for a month then came straight back to this article without even resuming the discussion just sticks of SPA. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how you are able to see a similarity between that discussion and this. First of all, I'm not arguing that Narayana was unmarried (I don't even know). All I'm saying is that a significant view point is that he did not enjoy any conjugal relationship. While stating thus, I did not try to silence the other opinion (I did not so much as modify that sentence in any manner). Second, I didn't present any original research here. If I ever come up with a piece of original research, I would like due credit for that. So, original research being presented on Wikipedia by me is out of the question. Third, and most important, point: Cyriac Pullapilly writing something about Narayana Guru is in no way similar to Bhagat Singh writing something about himself. Now, don't assume that I'm questioning your source here. I'm not. I'm just stating a fact. BudChrSch (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you are stating the opinions of people who had a vested interest in ensuring that the subject's image was kept as "pure" as possible. They have no more idea whether he had a conjugal relationship that you or I do, unless voyeurism or orgies etc were involved. He was most probably married: anything else is speculation. My point about Singh was not what he said but rather what his acolyte said. The same applies here. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on! You know that I was not referring to Narayana Guru's marriage when I said, "I'm just stating a fact." As would be understood by anybody whose "first language" is English, I was referring to the third point of that particular argument. Now I'm genuinely beginning to question your motives. BudChrSch (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What third point are you referring to? There are several comments above that involve multiple points. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you even understand the meaning of the words that and particular? Since it appears to me that you don't, here's what I was referring to:"Third, and most important, point: Cyriac Pullapilly writing something about Narayana Guru is in no way similar to Bhagat Singh writing something about himself." In that article you were defending something that the subject of the article wrote about himself. Here, that's definitely not the case. BudChrSch (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I responded to that point: My point about Singh was not what he said but rather what his acolyte said. The same applies here.. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION!

QOUTE:

Gurudevan, as he was known by his followers, led a reform movement in Kerala, rejected casteism and promoted new values of spiritual freedom and social equality.[1] END OF QUOTE

The article quality is quite bad, as is more or less the quality of most article connected to Kerala and even India.

As to the claim that it was 'Gurudevan' who led a reform movement in Kerala, it is just nonsense. There was no Kerala during his time. North Malabar and South Malabar were quite unconnected to Travancore, and more connected to Madras Presidency. Even the language of Malabar, especially that of North Malabar, was not Malayalam at that time period in history.

Even between North Malabar and South Malabar, social issues were different and quite apart from those in Travancore Kingdom. In Malabar, social reform spontaneously came with the English rule. In Travancore kingdom also, most of the social reforms can be attributed to the English pressure exerted from Madras, and due to the changes imposed by Colonel Munro during his brief Dewanship in Travancore.

As to Narayana Guru, it is quite surprising that his name is not seen mentioned in either Travancore State Manual written by V. Nagam Aiya or in Native Life in Travancore written by Rev. Samuel Mateers. This does not mean that he was not involved in actions pointing towards social leadership. However, there is always the possibility that he was not acknowledged by a vast section of the society. Inside his own follower group, he would be a great personage. However outside the domain, he will literally be a nonentity.

That he or his team did built a temple (Jagadhanadha Temple) in Tellicherry has a content of deceit. In that some of the cunning social leaders of the local Thiyya community tried this as a diversionary tactic to lead the Thiyya youngsters from following English systems, which they might have feared would have allowed them to develop beyond the control of their caste leaders.

There is no doubt the Narayana Guru did have a following, mainly among the Ezhavas, and that he had some followers from other castes. However, that does not make him a leader of the Hindus or of any other castes. If such claims are made, they will be repudiated by others. Whether even the Shanars of South Travancore accepted him as their leader is not known or seen mentioned in the article.

As to the claim that he has promoted 'social equality', how can that be when he more or less spoke Malayalam, which is literally full of inequalities, and pejoratives to followers and subordinates? These are just empty claims with no basis. If at all any semblance of social equality was enforced in Malabar, it was by the English rule.

The main article has the quality of such article as Nayanar, Gandhi etc. which are all mere fan versions, all with tall claims to exclusive rights to events, historical and social. All of doubtful quality.

Apart from all this, on this Talk Page one busybody is seen dictating terms and sort of appointing himself or herself to self-appointed leadership, unilaterally. Who is this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.29.46 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narayana Guru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102071757/http://www.orientblackswan.com/display.asp?categoryID=0&isbn=978-81-250-5722-2 to http://www.orientblackswan.com/display.asp?categoryID=0&isbn=978-81-250-5722-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Narayanaguru

I wonder how people misguiding this wonderful site

Sreeretnan (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense written to defame a good personality of 20th century Sreeretnan (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense written about the biograpghy of a gentleman from southern State of india

Please don't allow hard-liners to write defamation statement Sreeretnan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have merged your above three statements into one section - no need to start a new section for each statement when they refer to the same thing. As for your concern, well, this page is for discussion of improvements to the article but you are being so vague that no improvements can be made from the information you give. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Oh, and note that (a) one cannot libel the dead; and (b) Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

sree Narayana Guru

Adding the link here for reference www. Sreenarayana.in Sreeretnan (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Year of Birth

I would like to know whether anybody can identify the exact year of birth of Sree Narayana Guru by citing reliable sources.Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because reliable sources differ and we have a policy of neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know whether any of the following sources can be considered as reliable:

a)https://missionldc.blogspot.com/2018/03/sree-narayana-guru.html b)https://divyum.com/category/geography/kerala/kerala-renaissance-important-leaders/sree-narayana-guru/ c)http://www.realbharat.org/sree-narayana-guru-the-revolutionary-social-reformer-398/ d)https://books.google.co.in/books?id=p2JgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&lpg=PT234&dq=20+august+1856+%22guru%22&source=bl&ots=4KV86WFKnl&sig=mJJIq6Vx7I3nDZAG8bGxNu_-8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMqZzWzOrdAhVacCsKHdSiAC8Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=20%20august%201856%20%22guru%22&f=false e)http://www.snaofna.org/ f)https://www.thefamouspeople.com/indian-philosophers.php If none of these sources can be considered as reliable, please do revert this edit done by me. Sorry for not including names for each of the link instead of their hyperlinks.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost entirely, No. And we do not need more sources anyway - we already have the evidence that the date is uncertain and nothing is going to change that: sources disagree and that is what we say. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A slight correction!

QUOTE: Narayana Guru (August 28, 1855 – September 20, 1928) was a spiritual Sage and social reformer of India. END OF QUOTE.

He was actually a subject of Travancore Kingdom. It is true that he did set up some Hindu temples in the Malabar District of Madras Presidency, in British-India, a sweeping statement that he was a 'social reformer of India' might not be historically correct. There is nothing wrong in being precise.

As to his social reforms in British-India, actually in British-Malabar, almost all the social freedoms he was fighting for in Travancore kingdom was already a fact of life in British-India.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Narayana Guru 1967 stamp of India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert?

I am seriously thinking of reverting this to how it was prior to the mass of edits by Tachs around April 2019. Well-intentioned I am sure they were but they really haven't helped matters. I've already removed loads of poor-to-terrible citations etc but there comes a point when it is simpler just to wind it back. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We would be looking at something like this version and then building off it with anything useful that has happened since. There isn't a lot because many of the remaining sources are from news outlets and they're rarely reliable if Indian (except for The Hindu and its stablemates). - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Athmopadesha shathakamwork by Narayana Guru, Verse 10.jpg
• Sree Narayana Guru with Mahatma Gandhi.jpg
• Sree Narayana Guru with Rabindranath Tagore.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No religion

Narayana guru has no religion , even though he is born to hindu ezhava . he said he did not belonged to any caste or religion

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-hails-contributions-of-sree-narayana-guru/article65356290.ece

https://www.mangalorean.com/sree-narayana-guru-said-one-caste-one-religion-one-god-but-never-asked-naming-circle-in-his-name/

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Narayana_Guru 173.66.121.55 (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Grabup: can you please put your views here too?

Can i add this ? - Aruvippuram Shiva Prathishta

Aruvippuram Shiva Prathishta

As narrated by shivalingadasa Swamikal who had witnessed the event.

The Guru had discussed the idea of ​​a shrine at the creek with many of his devotees. The Guru could understand that everyone wanted it. That is how the Guru ordered that the day of Shivaratri in 1888 could be the Pratishtha. The Guru did not tell the people who had gathered there for the Shivratri Vrat, except that he pointed to a rock facing the river and said that they can be here. Shivalinga Dasa Swami, Naniyashan and Bhairavan Shanti were there as assistants to the Guru. Guru did not tell even them what he was going to do. However, the devotees who had gathered there had made all the preparations they could. Around the rock where the Guru was standing as a pedestal, a pandal was tied and raised on top of the rock. Marotikayas are cut in the middle and oil is poured into them and lit. Those lamps were fixed on the thatched roofs. Nadswara reading was also arranged. Vaidyas arranged Ashtabandham for idol fixation. Gurudev was in a solemn silence all that day. At that time no one had the courage to even look at the face of the Guru who was as radiant as the golden idol in meditation near the Parnashala. At dusk all the lights turned on. The devotees started chanting the Panchakshari mantra. It was half past midnight. The night when devotees stay awake for Lord Shiva who has drunk poison. The Guru awoke from meditation and came out of Parnashala. Like the rising sun. Guru went straight to the river. In Neyyar there is a kayam (whirlpool sinkhole) called "Shankaran kuzhi". The rushing river turns around and flows forward in the deep Shankarankuzhi. Nothing comes up when fallen into Shankaran Kuzhi!.It is believed that Agastya gave his worshipping Shiva Linga to Neyyar river somewhere before leaving. As the crowd swelled, the Guru sank into the lake. Time passes.It has been a long time after guru disappeared under the water.People are standing with their arms folded and unable to even say a word. Only the chanting of the mantra of the river can still be heard. Then the Guru emerges from that bed. In his right hand he holds up a rock in the form of Shivalinga and with his left hand he climbs up holding the rock like an expert. Walking straight on, he reached the edge of the rock he intended to place. He held the rock close to his chest and stood meditatively, tears flowing from those compassionate eyes. He remained in meditation for hours. A ray of light from the sky rushed through the air and touched the stone in the Guru's hand. He placed the round stone on the flat stone. Rock fused to rock. The Vaidhyas who were waiting for the Ashta Bandham asked the Guru, "Should the Ashta Bandham be applied?" The Guru's lips, which were sealed in silence, spoke for the first time that day. "No. It's already fixed!"

Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

In my view, no. It’s not encyclopaedic. It’s anecdotal. And it’s greatly excessive in length. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification admin. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

'excessive' ?

i need to add some contents as well as images, but fear that it would be termed as 'excessive' But if you see this wikipedia page Swami Vivekananda , you can see even his relative's , and other family pics too. May i add some pics which is aligning with the format of Wikipedia article too this page ? Also need to add some sections with proper references.

@GorgeCustersSabre: can you please help me here? Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ningalonnichpovuka, I hope you are fine. You can’t use another page with an excessive gallery as grounds for adding them all here again too. It’s too much. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Sorry. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy

I observed a new change in philosophy of narayana guru to vedantha. Yes i agree that he was a advaitha vedhanthin from his work athmopadesha shathakam , but he also supports for duality as seen from his first verse. he never explicitly said he support any philosophy but it can be seen from his works. I too oppose the idea of putting 'one caste one religion one god' as his philosophy because it is just a low level philosophy/thought when taking his work as a whole.

Also one thing shold be mentioned here is that he also said ' my religion is also bhudhism' , so putting vedanta as his philosophy , i dont thing it is apt. I know narayana guru was from siddha tradition of rishis , his work from suppport advaitha and daitha in some place also, he even told in the last verse of athmopadesha shatakam than the universe or brahman along with out athma is so complex and cannot be explained by words or human understandable ideas.

What do you think here @ChandlerMinh: Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Either keep that empty or add all philosophies. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism -Controversy as a defining speech

Hi, Sree narayana guru is the father of Kerala renaissense , a spiritual orator and a saint . However a court order regarding a land dispute is used as a definition of sree narayana guru . Considering the language I am pretty sure this is done by haters to degrade him . The statement goes like this : " There was a rumor about Narayana Guru that he is a god, but in reality, he is not a god. He is an Indian social reformer. The statue of Narayana Guru cannot be treated as a deity, the Kerala High court observed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Narayana Guru Not An Avatar Of God: Kerala High Court . "

There are millions of God in India itself and there is no proof of them being god , god is not science but a belief . The high court ruled that he cannot be considered as an avatar of Vishnu as claimed by some ,since avatar is a Hindu concept and his statue cannot be considered as diety . This had nothing to do with anyone being god or not. As I said gos is a belief of a group of people. This sentence is twisted to define a great person that too as a defining paragraph . I have moved this to a subsection. please resist such hate spewing attempts Wannabesomething123 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Constant Revision

I have noticed that a certain paragraph regarding this person being worshiped as or seen as equal to god or not , and an indian state high court order regarding the same is being pulled into the main section .

The reason why it do not fit there , 1) The definition of god changes from religion to region , every religion tends to devalidate others god being god ,doesnt mean that they cannot worship whatever they want . Noone can impose anyones religious ideology on others. In south asia aninals to naturak resources are considered as god. Also the sources are from indian news portals , it says that he cannot be considered as a hindu avatar or a hindu diety. It have nothing to do with the concept of god outside hindu concept nor it devalidates it.also these rulings have limited validity in a global perspective . Hence you cannot use it to prove anyone being god or not or the existence of god. Regarding the court ruling it seems well acknowledged in the section . 'In popular Media '. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Name change 'Narayana Guru' to 'Sree Narayana Guru'

The name is Sree Narayana guru and not Narayana guru. A just a google results will reveal this. These are references from leading news articles from India on the name Sree Narayana guru. Infact the organizatiosn like SNDP and other organziations formed under his name has this 'sree'.

1[1] 2[2] 3[3] 4[4] 5[5] 6[6]

Requesting to change the name of the article. Afv12e (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Article missing many reformations done by Sree Narayan Guru

The article is missing many reformations done by sree narayan guru. Most of that is incidents or events rather than a movement. Most of the references are in Malayalam language and is from Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam sites. Just wondering those sources can be taken here. If else someone please add sources and mile stones here , so that we can discuss and add those. Afv12e (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)