Jump to content

Talk:Vithoba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleVithoba is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 3, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 28, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

This article is related to age old indian deity and most of the images on internet domain related to this deity are supposed to be in public domain.History of this article shows some one had posted an image and subsequently some body removed it. Please confirm if it is ok to upload an image from Govt of Maharashtra owned Web pages which are supposed to be copy left licence.

Time Being

[edit]

pandharpur tukaram Marathi literature

On article importance

[edit]

Vitthala is Vishnu of Maharashtra, the most important Vaishnava temple in Maharashtra. The only God in Maharashtra who enjoys state patronage and sarkari puja - that tells his importance. Panduranga is what Balaji is to Andhra, Udupi Krishna to Karnataka, Dwarakadeesh to Gujarat, Badrinath to Uttarakhand, Guruvayur to Kerala. why is Vithoba rated with mid, while all others are high??? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.38.35 (talk • contribs)

History of Annual Palkhi Pilgrimage

[edit]

I believe the article should have more on the history of the annual pilgrimage of Varkari with Palkhis of different saints. The questions I have on the topic are: 1. Who started the Palkhi tradition ? 2. When ? 3. Important milestones in the history of the tradition ? 4. How many palkhis ?

Previously I had found references to Sant Tukaram's son starting the tradition in late 1600s with Tukaram palkhi. Later on Sant Dnyaneshwar's palkhi was introduced and so on. This was followed by a break in tradition for years or decades. The current tradition dates back to 1821 when Haibat buwa of Alandi revived the tradition. All this was in a reliable source. Unfortunately, I can not find it again. Verifying this information and adding it to the Varkari sect section should further enhance the article. Jonathansammy (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was able to find the following: 1. [1]

2. [2]

4. [3]


3. [4]

Jonathansammy (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Varkari is the best article for the information, not this one. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to "Vitthal"

[edit]

As per WP:COMMONNAME, name of article should be Vitthal. Official name of temple in Pandharpur is also Shri Vitthal - Rukmini Mandir. All news media refers him as Vitthal, all songs based on him call him Vitthal, and in famous or primary mantra related to him Vitthal Vitthal, Jai Hari Vitthal also calls him Vitthal. --Vtk1987 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the statements made by Vtk1987. The article name should be Vitthal. In all the books, newspepers and day today communication, the work Vitthal is used by all. Request to redirect the article to Vitthal... Yogee23 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NGRAMS are equivocal. No clear majority. Ogress smash! 06:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: Yogee23 is right, you can read my comments on admin who deleted my speedy nomination to redirect Vitthal, read here User talk:Malcolmxl5#Redirect Vitthal. Vitthal is most common name, its official name of the temple. Those comments on admins talk page are just few, I can give you many more, also in reliable proofs from local language. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't a move vote format, I don't see anyone voting. If you want a vote, run a vote using Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Controversial - the template is there, be sure to include the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion - and be sure to mention it on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics at the bottom. Ogress smash! 20:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the procedure, I was just asking your opinion as you are also involved very much in WikiProject Religion. --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I'm inclined to vote for a move based on recent scholarship, but I'm promising nothing. I encourage you to run the vote because I think you have some evidence, I want to see a proper formal proposal with evidences (NGRAMs are heavily weighted usually because scholarship, but pointing out significant authors who use Vitthal like the ones I found afterwards searching places like Amazon.com in English like Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur by Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere and Anne Feldhaus helps). And other votes from Noticeboard are necessary for a good vote; we've had a lot of problems with understaffed votes recently. Ogress smash! 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, the article name should be Vitthal. Actually there are many alternate names for this God. These includes Vithoba, Pandurang, Kanada etc. But most widely used name in Vitthal. So article name should be Vitthal... Coolgama (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment 29 July 2015

[edit]
Delisting as redundant. An move request has been opened instead. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vithoba → Vitthal – As per WP:COMMONNAME, Official government website of Solapur district in which temple of this God situated calling this deity as "Vitthal". Recent news on Times of India regarding recent festival of this deity calling this deity as "Vitthal" and also mentions that "Vithoba" is "another name". Recently I have also moved page of temple of this deity Vithoba Temple, Pandharpur to Vitthal Temple, Pandharpur see here because sources mentioned in that article were calling this deity's temple as "Vitthal temple" [5], [6], [7], [8]. also 5910 book results for "Lord Vitthal". Oxford University Press book Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere (12 September 2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-19-977764-8. calling deity as "Vitthal. Official website of the temple is not working, but official name of the temple is "Vitthal-Rukmini temple". Worshiping verses made on this deity are known as Abhang. These abhangas also refer this deity as "Lord Vitthal". I can give you lots of sources from local language Marathi, these abhangas are in Marathi. Read this news on concert on Abhangas named "Wisdom of Vitthala". Article on this deity on Marathi Wikipedia is named "Vitthal" see hare. Thank you. Human3015Send WikiLove  21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 July 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Despite the numerical majority in favour of the move, the arguments on either side, in terms of policy, are equally good. So much so that I cannot see there being a consensus to move this page (or a consensus to retain, but we default to the long-term status quo). Kwami's comment that this was "too close to call" is a good one and nothing has changed since then. Jenks24 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Vithoba → Vitthal – As per WP:COMMONNAME, Official government website of Solapur district in which temple of this God situated calling this deity as "Vitthal". Recent news on Times of India regarding recent festival of this deity calling this deity as "Vitthal" and also mentions that "Vithoba" is "another name". Recently I have also moved page of temple of this deity Vithoba Temple, Pandharpur to Vitthal Temple, Pandharpur see here because sources mentioned in that article were calling this deity's temple as "Vitthal temple" [9], [10], [11], [12]. also 5910 book results for "Lord Vitthal". Oxford University Press book Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere (12 September 2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-0-19-977764-8. calling deity as "Vitthal. Official website of the temple is not working, but official name of the temple is "Vitthal-Rukmini temple". Worshiping verses made on this deity are known as Abhang. These abhangas also refer this deity as "Lord Vitthal". I can give you lots of sources from local language Marathi, these abhangas are in Marathi. Read this news on concert on Abhangas named "Wisdom of Vitthala". Article on this deity on Marathi Wikipedia is named "Vitthal" see hare. Thank you. Human3015Send WikiLove  21:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:In below survey section, reply Support with your rationale if you support the move, reply Oppose with your rationale if you oppose the move. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Support I have less idea on the regional name, what it is called. But, the government website is the official one, so can be moved.--Vin09 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Bullet heading added by Imc (talk) in accordance with move page convention. [reply]
A district government does not usually make policy on the names of dieties, and even it did, there is no reason for Wikipedia to take any note of it. What you see is what the writer thought was the appropriate way to write it. Imc (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to the statements made by Vtk1987. The article name should be Vitthal. In all the books, newspepers and day today communication, the work Vitthal is used by all. Request to redirect the article to Vitthal... Yogee23 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Regarding the statement made above, that the ngram result is 'inconclusive', it certainly does not indicate any form as dominant over the others. But what it actually shows that Vithoba has been the commonest usage over time, and that Vitthal and Vitthala have become more common in recent years. It is to be considered here because book usage (nearer scholarly usage) should be given preference as per naming conventions. As for distingushing between Vitthal and Vitthala, there is the existing long standing practice for Hinduism related articles, wthat the standard Sanskrit name of religious terms should be used as the source (agreed in various talk pages over time, though not written up in a policy). Among other things this saves arguments over regional variations and understandings. For instance it is Vitthala in Kannada, and appears to be Vithala in Telugu. Hence the names used in Wikipedia are, e.g. Rama not Ram, dharma, not dharm, et.c., despite what comes up in Google results. The only significant exception that occurs to me now is avatar but this has become a well known English word. Admittedly this diety's origin seems to come after the period of formation of classical Sanskrit, but that also applies to many others. Imc (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given any source for your views, I have given sources that "Vitthal" is an official and common name. You have made statement "Vithoba has been the commonest usage over time" without giving any base for that while you yourself accepting that "Vitthal and Vitthala have become more common in recent years". --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015, you say You have not given any source for your views. Actually the source was quoted above this discussion, in a previous discussion that was discontinued in favour of this. Since you ask, I'll quote it again - it is these NGRAMS which Ogress reasonably describes as inconclusive. I'll summarise it once again as 'Vithoba being the commonest usage over time'. Since this reflects scholarly use, we should pay particular attention to it rather than the general searches that are in your presentation. The long standing Wikipedia practice of using the Sanskrit form of the names of Hindu deities rather than the modern versions also favours Vitthala over Vitthal. For a source on that you will have probably have to read all the old discussions on the project Hinduism talk pages, as well as those on individual deities. Imc (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover "Vitthal" is commonname since old era, how name of God will change over the time? "Vitthal" is original name of the deity, primary follower of deity "Vitthal" and 17th century poet Tukaram has wrote his verses on "Vitthal" and you can find he referred this deity as "Vitthal" most of times. If you know Marathi language then read those verses here. You have to search in it various verses. Moreover, "Vithoba" is a derived name, "ba" means "father", anyone use suffix "ba" to fatherly figure in Marathi, they call father as "baba". So "Vithoba" is just corruption of word "Vitthal". Some passionate followers call "Vitthal" as "Vithoba" because for them its "fatherly" god who will "save them from all evils and sorrows". --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In continuation of my above comment, read here translation of "father" in marathi, you will see in that table translation given is "Vadil and Baba". "Vadil" is more formal term equivalent to word "father" in English while word "baba" is equivalent to word "papa" in English. This current title "Vithoba" is just corruption of "Vitthal" to glorify the deity by using ba. Still Vitthal is common name and official name. --Human3015Send WikiLove  22:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read my above comments, I'm writing everything only on the basis of sources. Moreover, read "etymology" section of this own featured article, instead of giving etymology of word vithoba they have given etymology or origin of word Vitthal in starting. This article speaks itself. While talking about word Vithoba they have also said ba means "father". Vithoba is just glorification and corruption of Vitthal. Please don't oppose such valid move. --Human3015Send WikiLove  22:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as per Human3015 Shrikanthv (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Vithoba is more an affectionate name of Vitthal/Vitthala. My searches show that online hits of both names are more or less same. But I would be interested in seeing proof if Vithoba was more common name over time and that Vitthal is the latest trend. Also, another point to note is that English search-hits shouldn't be the only criteria for online commonness. Marathi (Devnagri) "विठ्ठल" (Vitthal) has more hits than "विठोबा" (Vithoba). I don't object if the name is moved to either Vitthal or Vitthala. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: read you own given encyclopedia of Hinduism [14] on same page they have separate article of "Vitthal" and read it, they are saying "Vitthal" is oldest attested name and common epithet. We can get sources for each terms, more imporant thing is which term is more relevant. Tell me why "etymology" section of this article primarily explains term "Vitthal"? Vithoba is derived name from Vitthal. "Vithoba" means "father Vitthal". Etymology section also talks about term "Vithai" (vith+aai) (aai means mother). It means "Mother Vitthal". so there are numerous derivatives of original term "Vitthal". Instead of article having name "Father Vitthal (Vithoba)" or "Mother Vitthal (Vithai)", it should simply have name "Vitthal". Moreover, this Wikipedia is having "wrong name" "Vithoba" since 10 years, so there is possibility that this Wikipedia article can have influence over other sources regarding name. Official name of the temple is "Vitthal Temple" and I have given you all sources. You have to tell us meaning of "Vithoba"--Human3015Send WikiLove  07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is WP:COMMONNAME, not "oldest name" or WP:OFFICIALNAME (The Pandharpur temple authorities using Vitthala, doesn't the name sanctity; it only reflects the Brahmin tradition; not the Varkaris). Quoting Encyclopedia of Hinduism: "Vitthala: Common epithet of Vithoba. ... [7 lines] See Vithoba". Vithoba is the main article with almost the full page devoted to the article. More references:
And who said "Vithoba" is common name? At least you accepted that "Vitthal" is "oldest name" and "official" name. I claim that "Vitthal" is common name too, thats what all supporters are saying here. But even if we consider both "Vithoba" and "Vitthal" as "popular" name then we should lean towards "oldest" and "offcial" name among two popular names.--Human3015Send WikiLove  16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Before closing kindly note that in above section there are 2-3 people also supported this move but they have not commented in this section yet. --Human3015Send WikiLove  09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: Google search results for "Vithoba" are about 400,000 while google search results for "Vitthal" are 637,000. Book results for "Lord Vithoba" are 4,440 while book hits for "Lord Vitthal" are 5,880. So google results are more for "Vitthal". Even if we conclude that difference between both terms is not so big and both are "popular" terms, then we have few more things on the side of "Vitthal", that is "oldest name", "original name" and "official name". Moreover as earlier explained term "Vithoba" itself came from term "Vitthal" and meaning of "Vithoba" is "Father Vitthal" (which is also explained in etymology section of this featured article). So current name "Vithoba' is "derived term from Vitthal", "Glorification name of the deity calling it father", "google results shows it is relatively less popular than Vitthal", "not official name of temple". Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling this deity as "Vithoba" (Father Vitthal) is like calling Dalai Lama as His holiness Dalai Lama. Current name "Vithoba" (ba means Father) is glorified name, simple name should be "Vitthal", which also "common", "original", "oldest", "neutral" and "official". --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to review this request, but it's got another day to run. So I'll present you with what I've found so far, with what I would use to decide how to close this discussion.
First, what the deity is called in Marathi, and certainly on Marathi WP is irrelevant: We are concerned about usage in English, and WP is not a RS for WP. "Official" usage is also irrelevant, unless it becomes common English usage as well. Likewise, the derivation of the name is irrelevant: "Vithoba" doesn't mean "Father Vitthal" in English.
I did two Ngram searches: [15] and [16]. It would appear that "Vithoba" is the older name in English. "Vithoba" had a spike in usage in the 1960s, and the two names have been approximately equal in frequency ever since, and least until the Ngram cut-off of 2008. There is therefore no clear choice per COMMONNAME, though the older attestation, as well as the spike in the 1960s, suggests that most English speakers will be more likely to come across "Vithoba". Based on that single factor, I'd find no reason to move the article. I'd look further, but I've hit my limit for reviewing move requests today. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami, Thanks for your comment on request. Its conclusion that we can't say which name is common, so criteria of WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable here, so what should be the second criteria? Why "official name" can't be the second criteria? While you are saying in "English" "Vithoba" is old name. Means you are considering "old name" as second criteria, then we have sources in English also which says "Vithoba is derived from Vitthal". This article itself talks about exclusively "Vitthal" in etymology section. And if you think that "Vitthal" can be difficult to English speakers then as above some users suggested we can use "Vitthala" instead. Both "Vitthal" and "Vitthala" are same. Moreover, you commented here as a participant, so as per my Wiki experience you can't close this thread now, you closed move discussion of Elara (king) without participating in it. Thank you. But I really appreciate that you grasped this issue very well in quick time. Cheers--Human3015Send WikiLove  23:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not comment as a participant, but as someone invited to close the article a day early. I merely shared the criteria I would use to decide the issue, so that you could better address them.
By "earlier", I don't mean etymology, but the form found earlier in English. According to Ngram, that would be "Vithoba". That is, "Vithoba" has a longer attested usage in English than "Vitthal". However, that's long enough ago, and the frequencies were low enough, that it won't greatly affect which term readers might be exposed to. All else being equal, I would decide on "Vithoba" because of the spike of usage in the 1960s that so dominates the history of this name in English. But that's long enough ago (probably before most readers here were even born) that other considerations could easily be more important.
I did not consider the spelling "Vitthala". That's not "simpler", but it should be considered: It's a trivial variant of Vitthal, so the two forms could be counted together. Ngram suggests that all three forms are about equal in frequency.[17][18] That means that, since the spike in "Vithoba" in the 1960s, the frequency of Vitthal(a) is approximately twice that of Vithoba. That's not a huge difference, so COMMONNAME is not definitive, but it's enough to favor "Vitthal" (or "Vitthala") as the name of this article, unless there are other reasons for retaining "Vithoba".
The EB has an article Vitthala, but that is about the "Hindu leader". How much does this affect the Ngram results? Might they be spurious because we're confusing two entities? Would "Lord Vitthala" ever be used to refer to the son of Vallabha?
You're right, there's more to consider than raw frequencies. Which form is preferred in other encyclopedias? Which is preferred in recent RS treatments of Hinduism? Etc.
— kwami (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami This article is having less common name "Vithoba" since a decade, this article will not get chance again and again to change its name to real name "Vitthal", this maybe the chance in decade to give real name to the deity that it deserve. I have provided many sources and done everything for this move. You can read some of comments by "supporters" of the move, they belongs to Maharashtra state and it seems they have visited temple, they are expert in this issue. Also I have provided sources supporting their views. In Marathi Wikipedia name of the article is "Vitthal", Marathi people must be very familiar with this god and they have kept appropriate name.
To say more, I myself visited this temple as a tourist at least for ten times, I'm very much aware about reality about name, thats why I'm insisting so much for this name. But my personal experience doesn't matters, thats why if you read entire discussion, whatever I have wrote everything is based on sources. It is obviously reality that sources are not against me. Moreover, though Wikipedia is not democracy still number of supporters for the move (in two sections) is higher than opposers. There are only two opposers. I will request again, this opportunity will not come again and again to move to real name, we must do it now. --Human3015Send WikiLove  00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More likely than not, it will be someone else who will close this article in the coming days. There's not a clear case for either name, and non-admins like me should probably restrict ourselves to reasonably clear cases. As for the idea that there won't be another chance to move this for a decade, you exaggerate. In fact, you've been exaggerating throughout this discussion, which makes you look bad (i.e. either irrational or spinning propaganda) and by extension makes your case look bad. Just FYI: When someone says things in an argument they likely know are not true, my initial reaction is to dismiss their entire argument. But, like I said, I probably won't be closing this. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that "we will not get chance for next decade", I just said "we got chance in a decade", means we got this chance to move this page in a decade (means last decade). My writing may look exaggeration to many, but I really never mean to exaggerate the things, I do have provided sources for my each claim. Thanks for your cooperation and for not closing this thread. --Human3015Send WikiLove  01:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no idea what that means. Could be closed today, but too close for me to call. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vitthal is the most commonly used name for the Vithoba deity

Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vithoba. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vithoba. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-brahmanical

[edit]

In the lede it says"Vithoba is the focus of the monotheistic, non-Brahamanical[1][2] Varkari faith of Maharashtra and the Haridasa faith of Karnataka. Vitthal Temple, Pandharpur is his main temple." After the lede, the term non-brahmanical does not appear at all in the rest of the article.That being so, the article and certainly the lede, needs a review.Please comment.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Npov and monotheism, brahmanism

[edit]

I did the source checks. The two sources, one edited by Eleanor Zelliot and ‎Maxine Berntsen, the other by Sand, are discussing the Varkari traditions opposition to priestly Brahmans (Brahmin), not the metaphysical Brahman. We should not conflate the two in this FA-class article, though this innocent mistake is understandable. On monotheism, we need to be as careful as Sand who attributes the "essentially monotheistic" view to Raeside. There are other views. For example, Novetzke in Guy edited book Alternative Krishnas, published by State Univ of New York Press, gives several examples where the Varkari tradition reveres or incorporates Shiva, in a Shaiva-Vaishnava synthesis, on pages 115-116. Anna Schultz on page 23 of Singing a Hindu Nation: Marathi Devotional Performance and Nationalism, published by Oxford Univ Press, how certain kirtans (bhakti songs) in Maharashtra revere Vitthala, the poet-saints, but their stories and songs just as frequently praise pan-Hindu gods like Shiva, Ganesh, and Rama. For NPOV, we need to be careful in what we state and how we state it. Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

[edit]

An IP account is removing sourced content from this featured article.I request that the page should be protected.I leave it to the administrators to decide on what level of protection to be applied.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Crooke and Raj era sources

[edit]

I thought we were not allowed to use Raj era sources, and particularly those by colonial administers such as William Crooke.Comments? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vithoba&oldid=1211733999"