This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sant Mat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having been the principle author on the old article (now turned into the contemporary sant mat article) I am impressed. Nice work, Jossi. Dave 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
New article, more material to come soon. See Talk:Contemporary Sant Mat movement. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
When i enter "Sant Mat" at the search field at Wikipedia, just the new article appears. While the old article is gone to "contemporary sant mat movement" with all it's contributions and it's own historical paragraphs. Not even a link is placed. This article is reserched by you alone and replaces another one to be pushed into a corner: That is hard to understand. You conclude the development of Sant Mat on the use of Poems in Guru Grand Sahib, but also excerpts of Gita and so on you will find in this. You feared that your research might be looked at as an original one. I wouldn't have a problem with even that, if it was properly done. Let me give you an example: It were scholars that found out that the suras in Koran where sorted by lenght and not chronologically as one would expect. Not by just reading one book but by researching on and on( a big problem for orthodox islam for it shakes their fundamental belief). So there are contradictions in the suras and the rule is, the latter one neutralizes the former one. But which is the former one? To orthodox muslims say the one that comes later in the book. And one sura was cut in two by a khalif and added a new title. How could that be if the Koran is not changeable? A lot of questions. Similar here. If you want to hint a conclusion that seems obvious from your sight, please add it, with great caution and name it as that and find a reference of someone with the same conclusion. So what do you think of that? Is it, because this work is still in progress, but why replace the old version then right away? Thomas h 15:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Which books? Guru Grant Sahib, Advait Mat, The Sants: Studies in A Devotional Tradition of India ,.... ? I see you are heavy engaged. I have the information from a former premie who joined Pir Vilayat Khan quite a while, that he was using a combination of music and light meditation, arms up and the little fingers were pointing to the third eye. Surat Shabd has to join in somewhere, i think. And to find out, how it came that Murshid i Kamil "survived" as "Perfect Master" e.g. down to the branch of Kirpal Singh would be very interesting. Thomas h 17:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The article states that only the Sant Mat was able to cross boundaries between Hindus and Muslims, but what about Shirdi Sai Baba who is generally not considered as belonging to the Sant Mat. It seems that this is simply untrue. Andries
If any of you want to collaboarate in writing this article, you are most welcome. But please do not expect me to do all the work and then complain about it. Do some research, go to the library, bring some sources. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Writer is obviously a practicer. Article is non-neutral.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.148.120 ( talk • contribs) Pjacobi 11:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed your edit as follows...
...because it does not provide a source for that assertion of fact. If you find such a source you could write something along the lines of: XYZ disagrees with this translation of Sant Mat, asserting instead that Sant Mat refers to the Sant Satgurus, the avatars of the supreme being . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Guys, do you realise the consequence of this kind of circuitous thinking? If we admit only material that is "referenced", that has a "source", then we are irrevocably limiting the bounds of our discussion. Nothing new can or will be said, unless it manages to somehow slip in in between some old, referenced material. I thought that was the whole point of a venture like this (this Wiki stuff), that people who have something to say get to say if unfettered by all kinds of unnecessary rules. (Although I do agree, vandalism will certainly be an important issue.)
Incidentally, Jossi, as regards this post, you can put back what I'd written. In this case at least, I know what I'm talking about. (You were good enought to keep--although edited--my definition of a related term, which I'd put in yesterday as the same time I did this.)
I'm new to this site, and still amn't quite sure how the whole thing works (who decides, and how, what to keep in and what to keep out), but I'm liking it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.81.18 ( talk • contribs)
Let me elaborate what I mean. This fetishism for sources and referencing may have been fine a hundred, or fifty, or twenty years back, but no more.
I put down what I put down on my own steam. Now, instead of that, had I published this as part of an article in a newspaper or magazine (which I sometimes do), and then someone else had quoted my article, then hey! you have a sourced, referenced material in front of you.
And the internet emphasizes this trend. What stops me from posting this onto a web page, perhaps even a fresh wiki article, and then getting my views an entry into the hallowed portals of referenced material.
My point is, let all statements, views, observations, stand on their own two feet. The fact that something has a "source" does not in any way add weight to it, and the fact that something isn't source doesn't detract from its value. (Not, that is, unless you use a closed universe of sources -- not practicable at all in this forum.)
What I'm driving at is, this source-fetishism is plain bull. An unsourced view is risky (it needs to be verified), but if you assume that just because a view is sourced, you can let loose your guard, you are making a very big mistake, a BASIC mistake.
This emphasis on sources simply obfuscates a very simple situation. I will go so far as to say that this source-fetishism is the result of intellectual laziness. EVERY idea needs to be examined critically. (Unless we choose to go back to the earlier universe of a closed set of sources--that may or may not be desirable, but at least it is consistent, practicable, with every forum (wiki, e.g.) deciding on its own closed user source set--but to simply accept ANY source (any book, any "author") is plain inconsistent, absurd, intenable.
A bit of a tangent from what we were originally discussing, I'm afraid, but makes sense, wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.81.18 ( talk • contribs)
I removed the material added about "5 main planes". Please provide some context and sources for these. As these stood, it was incomprehensible and lacked context. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The article lumps together people that were never associated with each other, though in definition states that they were loosely associated. I do not know enough about the subject to improve it, but I would advise readers not to believe what is written in this article. I suspect that as in the case of so many other Indian religious movements, this article is partially based on romanticized idealistic legendary portrayals of India's (religious) past. Andries 12:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved these over from the contemporary sant mat movements article as IMHO they are more appropriate here. Sevadar 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:I meant that it is better to keep them there. This is an article about historical Sant Mat.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kept just one EL per sant. The see also section is much better for finding out more, than these links... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The material in the lead and the material about the etymology is based in excellent sources. Please do not delete. You may want to add additional material with other viewpoints, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is loosely connected facts , which if repaired would emerge as Bhakti movement. The sant mat is a tradition, which is an inseperable part of Bhakti movement. It cannot exist on it's own.
The association of this tradition with modern day movements is wrong, seemingly promoted by the pioneers of such movements. Ajjay ( talk) 10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This article definitely does not qualify as an "A" class article. First, A class can only be given by an independent reviewer, not a regular editor of the article. Second, it's not nearly detailed, formatted, or edited well enough to be A class. Note, for instance, that there are no other articles at A class in WikiProject Spirituality. To be honest I'm not even sure this deserves B class, but it's not such a big deal. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject better please go through and trim the See Also section? Only very closely related articles belong there, not just any random Indian spiritual movement that occurred at the same time or had some vague connection. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We need to significantly cut down the external links. Are any of those links connected to official, authorized Sant Mat organizations? Any that are not should be removed. And if they're all "official", we need to pick out the best 2 or 3 and delete the rest, per WP:LINKFARM. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed an anonymous edit to the Further reading section made a while back that seems out of place. This link has shown up on a couple of other pages connected with this material that makes me suspect that is is somewhat SPAM related.
Here is a link to the history diff. for the RSSB link.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.75.184.208 ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional editors to weigh in on a dispute regarding Kirpal Singh#Legacy and succession. ( Article history) ( Relevant talk section) Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence Sant Mat Was, change, "Was to Is" Sauhum ( talk) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sant Mat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having been the principle author on the old article (now turned into the contemporary sant mat article) I am impressed. Nice work, Jossi. Dave 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
New article, more material to come soon. See Talk:Contemporary Sant Mat movement. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
When i enter "Sant Mat" at the search field at Wikipedia, just the new article appears. While the old article is gone to "contemporary sant mat movement" with all it's contributions and it's own historical paragraphs. Not even a link is placed. This article is reserched by you alone and replaces another one to be pushed into a corner: That is hard to understand. You conclude the development of Sant Mat on the use of Poems in Guru Grand Sahib, but also excerpts of Gita and so on you will find in this. You feared that your research might be looked at as an original one. I wouldn't have a problem with even that, if it was properly done. Let me give you an example: It were scholars that found out that the suras in Koran where sorted by lenght and not chronologically as one would expect. Not by just reading one book but by researching on and on( a big problem for orthodox islam for it shakes their fundamental belief). So there are contradictions in the suras and the rule is, the latter one neutralizes the former one. But which is the former one? To orthodox muslims say the one that comes later in the book. And one sura was cut in two by a khalif and added a new title. How could that be if the Koran is not changeable? A lot of questions. Similar here. If you want to hint a conclusion that seems obvious from your sight, please add it, with great caution and name it as that and find a reference of someone with the same conclusion. So what do you think of that? Is it, because this work is still in progress, but why replace the old version then right away? Thomas h 15:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Which books? Guru Grant Sahib, Advait Mat, The Sants: Studies in A Devotional Tradition of India ,.... ? I see you are heavy engaged. I have the information from a former premie who joined Pir Vilayat Khan quite a while, that he was using a combination of music and light meditation, arms up and the little fingers were pointing to the third eye. Surat Shabd has to join in somewhere, i think. And to find out, how it came that Murshid i Kamil "survived" as "Perfect Master" e.g. down to the branch of Kirpal Singh would be very interesting. Thomas h 17:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The article states that only the Sant Mat was able to cross boundaries between Hindus and Muslims, but what about Shirdi Sai Baba who is generally not considered as belonging to the Sant Mat. It seems that this is simply untrue. Andries
If any of you want to collaboarate in writing this article, you are most welcome. But please do not expect me to do all the work and then complain about it. Do some research, go to the library, bring some sources. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Writer is obviously a practicer. Article is non-neutral.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.148.120 ( talk • contribs) Pjacobi 11:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed your edit as follows...
...because it does not provide a source for that assertion of fact. If you find such a source you could write something along the lines of: XYZ disagrees with this translation of Sant Mat, asserting instead that Sant Mat refers to the Sant Satgurus, the avatars of the supreme being . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Guys, do you realise the consequence of this kind of circuitous thinking? If we admit only material that is "referenced", that has a "source", then we are irrevocably limiting the bounds of our discussion. Nothing new can or will be said, unless it manages to somehow slip in in between some old, referenced material. I thought that was the whole point of a venture like this (this Wiki stuff), that people who have something to say get to say if unfettered by all kinds of unnecessary rules. (Although I do agree, vandalism will certainly be an important issue.)
Incidentally, Jossi, as regards this post, you can put back what I'd written. In this case at least, I know what I'm talking about. (You were good enought to keep--although edited--my definition of a related term, which I'd put in yesterday as the same time I did this.)
I'm new to this site, and still amn't quite sure how the whole thing works (who decides, and how, what to keep in and what to keep out), but I'm liking it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.81.18 ( talk • contribs)
Let me elaborate what I mean. This fetishism for sources and referencing may have been fine a hundred, or fifty, or twenty years back, but no more.
I put down what I put down on my own steam. Now, instead of that, had I published this as part of an article in a newspaper or magazine (which I sometimes do), and then someone else had quoted my article, then hey! you have a sourced, referenced material in front of you.
And the internet emphasizes this trend. What stops me from posting this onto a web page, perhaps even a fresh wiki article, and then getting my views an entry into the hallowed portals of referenced material.
My point is, let all statements, views, observations, stand on their own two feet. The fact that something has a "source" does not in any way add weight to it, and the fact that something isn't source doesn't detract from its value. (Not, that is, unless you use a closed universe of sources -- not practicable at all in this forum.)
What I'm driving at is, this source-fetishism is plain bull. An unsourced view is risky (it needs to be verified), but if you assume that just because a view is sourced, you can let loose your guard, you are making a very big mistake, a BASIC mistake.
This emphasis on sources simply obfuscates a very simple situation. I will go so far as to say that this source-fetishism is the result of intellectual laziness. EVERY idea needs to be examined critically. (Unless we choose to go back to the earlier universe of a closed set of sources--that may or may not be desirable, but at least it is consistent, practicable, with every forum (wiki, e.g.) deciding on its own closed user source set--but to simply accept ANY source (any book, any "author") is plain inconsistent, absurd, intenable.
A bit of a tangent from what we were originally discussing, I'm afraid, but makes sense, wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.81.18 ( talk • contribs)
I removed the material added about "5 main planes". Please provide some context and sources for these. As these stood, it was incomprehensible and lacked context. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The article lumps together people that were never associated with each other, though in definition states that they were loosely associated. I do not know enough about the subject to improve it, but I would advise readers not to believe what is written in this article. I suspect that as in the case of so many other Indian religious movements, this article is partially based on romanticized idealistic legendary portrayals of India's (religious) past. Andries 12:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved these over from the contemporary sant mat movements article as IMHO they are more appropriate here. Sevadar 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:I meant that it is better to keep them there. This is an article about historical Sant Mat.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Kept just one EL per sant. The see also section is much better for finding out more, than these links... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The material in the lead and the material about the etymology is based in excellent sources. Please do not delete. You may want to add additional material with other viewpoints, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is loosely connected facts , which if repaired would emerge as Bhakti movement. The sant mat is a tradition, which is an inseperable part of Bhakti movement. It cannot exist on it's own.
The association of this tradition with modern day movements is wrong, seemingly promoted by the pioneers of such movements. Ajjay ( talk) 10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This article definitely does not qualify as an "A" class article. First, A class can only be given by an independent reviewer, not a regular editor of the article. Second, it's not nearly detailed, formatted, or edited well enough to be A class. Note, for instance, that there are no other articles at A class in WikiProject Spirituality. To be honest I'm not even sure this deserves B class, but it's not such a big deal. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who knows the subject better please go through and trim the See Also section? Only very closely related articles belong there, not just any random Indian spiritual movement that occurred at the same time or had some vague connection. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We need to significantly cut down the external links. Are any of those links connected to official, authorized Sant Mat organizations? Any that are not should be removed. And if they're all "official", we need to pick out the best 2 or 3 and delete the rest, per WP:LINKFARM. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed an anonymous edit to the Further reading section made a while back that seems out of place. This link has shown up on a couple of other pages connected with this material that makes me suspect that is is somewhat SPAM related.
Here is a link to the history diff. for the RSSB link.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.75.184.208 ( talk) 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional editors to weigh in on a dispute regarding Kirpal Singh#Legacy and succession. ( Article history) ( Relevant talk section) Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence Sant Mat Was, change, "Was to Is" Sauhum ( talk) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)