Talk:Yogiji Maharaj

---

Page Move

This article should be called Yogiji Maharaj and not Jinabhai Vasanji. When a person renounces his worldly life, he renounced his worldly identity. This tradition is common to Hinduism regardless of the group or organization. As a result, this page should be renamed accordingly. Moksha88 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My worry is that names that involve honorifics, etc., fall foul of WP:NPOV. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's look at Pramukh Swami Maharaj and Shastriji Maharaj; both of their articles have their ascetic names and not real names. Also, if we look at a book written by Raymond Brady Williams, a neutral party, even he never has no instance of 'Jinabhai' or 'Vasanji' in the book, An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. It's a technicality that needs to be addressed and corrected. Moksha88 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Moksha88 that the title should be the name he was commonly known with - its his name, not a title or honorific. Try looking for 'Norma Jeane' on this site - it redirects to her popular/adopted name, Marilyn Monroe. But we do need to be careful about it being seen as NPOV. Any suggestions on how to keep the Yogiji title and not go against NPOV, Mel? wildT 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand the POV issue. This is a factual inconsistency. Even today when devotees choose to renounce their worldy lives for the life of an ascetic, they're worldly identities are essentially wiped. Moksha88 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly the "Yogiji" that worries me. The Monroe example is a different case, as she's very well known by that name; in many other cases, where someone isn't well known by either name, it's the birth name that'used as the title, and the alternative names mentioned in the article. With redirects, this presents no problem for searching, of course. (Books don't have to stick to NPoV, but we do, by the way.)

And I agree that Wikipedia is full of articles with the same problem; most editors know enough about the Abrahamic religions generally to avoid NPoV honorifics, but they tend to slip when it comes to religious traditions such as those of Hinduism, etc. Augustine of Hippo is known to the Christian churches as "St Augustine", but we don't use that title, as it's NPoV. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you feel that "Yogiji" confers honor aka non-POV. Well, if you said Jinabhai Vasanji to a Swaminarayan devotee, s/he would not recognize the person. Yogiji Maharaj is the name by which he is most recognized as it was with this name that he traveled and spread knowledge of the Swaminarayan faith. Moksha88 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel, heard of Alexander III of Macedon? It redirects to 'Alexander the Great' - it may be POV to you and me, but its, well, his name. I may not agree on his greatness, but I have to agree that that was his name. I may not agree on Mohandas Gandhi's greatness but I have to agree that he was/is known as 'Mahatma' which means great soul in Hindi. A name is a name. Moksha88 is correct in saying that even his own devotees will not connect with 'Jinabhai'. I strongly feel this should be titled 'Yogiji Maharaj' in the interest of truth - its the guy's name as it was and is. Its the brand he's known as, the handle he's known with. wildT 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only really repeat the "St Augustine" example (which is a closer analogy than "Alexander the Great"). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, if Yogiji Maharaj is too non-POV, can we at least change it to Sadhu Gnãnjivandasji? That was his name given to him upon entrance into the order. Moksha88 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If everyon is agreeable, that would be a good compromise I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Life's a compromise . . . am ok with Sadhu Gnanjivandasji. wildT 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

I think this page should have more information about Yogiji Maharaj and his accomplishments (encouraging more youths into satsang, organizing bal mandal, etc)...also has anyone looked at the Shashtriji maharaj page? i think we should reorganize that page because there seems to be no flow and too much information and prasangs..I say this because many people who visit the "Bhagwan Swaminarayan" page will come across the Shashtriji Maharaj link and will not truly understand who he was and the stuggles he faced to fight to propgate the aksharpuroshottam upasana...what does everyone else think?Vatchdog 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia Policy(WP: Article titles), article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. It also advises that a COMMONNAME be used i.e one that is most recognizable and natural. In the case of this article that name would be Yogiji Maharaj and not Sadhu Gnanjivandasji. Furthermore, the title Yogiji Maharaj is consistent with the titles of other similar articles such as Shastriji Maharaj, Bhagatji Maharaj e.t.c and is a title that someone familiar with,although not necessarily an expert in,the subject area will recognize. In accordance with WP policy, the page should be moved to Yogiji Maharaj.Rooneywayne17 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is not consistent with other similar articles such as Pramukh Swami Maharaj and Bhagatji maharaj. Readers are also more likely to search for Yogiji Maharaj so I believe the name should be changed to Yogiji Maharaj. It doesn't make sense for this article to be named differently compared to the other guru articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaNDNman224 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rooneywayne17 that Wikipedia policy (WP:UCRN, WP:RECOGNIZABLE) indicates that this article should be titled Yogiji Maharaj, the subject individual's commonly recognized name. Reliable sources, including those used as references in this article, consistently refer to him as Yogiji Maharaj. Because he is referred to mainly as Yogiji Maharaj, not Sadhu Gnanjivandasji, this title would also comport with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality in article titles(WP:POVNAME). HinduPundit (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the ongoing talk page discussion, and a consensus to rename it to Yogiji Maharaj based on Wikpedia policies ( WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UCRN, WP:RECOGNIZABLE ), universal use of "Yogiji Maharaj" in scholarly sources over "Sadhu Gnanjivandas", and higher likelihood of searching the article with the keywords of "Yogiji Maharaj" than a search being made by the less recognizable keywords "Sadhu Gnanjivandas", I have initiated a rename here Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#movereq-Sadhu_Gn.C3.A3njivandas. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See Also

I do not understand why the links to Bhagwan Swaminarayan and Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha were taken out of the 'See Also' section. Both of them are related articles to this personality - BAPS was the organization that he led and Bhagwan Swaminarayan was the head of his faith. Please justify the deletions. Moksha88 15:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - they were duplicates. Oops! Moksha88 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement to article

The previous article was sparse and contained little information on the life and work of Yogiji Maharaj. Since the page hasn't been active for a while I have attempted to include more information and generally tried to improve the article. I look forward to collaborating with other interested editors to improve this article even further. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:SwamiBlue, please see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section and WP:Undue. The emphasis given to material in the lead section should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. It is for this reason that I believe your addition of Gunatit Samaj would serve the article better if it were placed in the "Later Life" or a separate "See also" section. If any other interested users have thoughts on this please chime in here.Kopa04 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:Undue warrants removing the mention of the Gunatit Samaj from the Lead section. If any users would like to incorporate the Gunatit Samaj into a "See also" section, any references should be appropriately substantiated by verifiable secondary sources, per WP:NOR. HinduPundit (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)