Talk:Rishi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalized?[edit]

The spelling varies wildly between "rishi" and "Rishi" throughout. Unify! Wegesrand (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The following addition has been reverted for the fourth time in row (3 times by me, 1 time by Vandamonde:

"Rishis are a seeker of enlightenment, who try to connect with the supreme being through meditation. Rishis are elevated humans who may sometimes ultimately connect with the supreme being through enlightenment. They may also receive direct guidance from God. Post-Vedic tradition regards the Rishis as "sages" or saints, constituting a peculiar class of human beings who have received enlightenment direct from God, in some cases rishis may also refer to Abrahamic prophets as mentioned in the earliest Vedas"

There are several problems with this "info":

  • The lead is supposed to summarize the article; this "info" is not in the article.
  • It's not about the historical rishis, but about a contemporary understanding or interpretation of "rishis". As such, it needs references.
    • "Rishis are a seeker of enlightenment" - rishis were poets who invoked the gods. The term "enlightenment" is a modern, western term, not a Vedic term;
    • "who try to connect with the supreme being through meditation" - meditation was most likely not part of the Vedic rituals;
    • "who may sometimes ultimately connect" - this is unintelligent; what does this sentence mean?
    • "connect with the supreme being through enlightenment" - this is a specific understanding of what "enlightenment means;
    • "They may also receive direct guidance from God" - like the Jewish profets?
    • "in some cases rishis may also refer to Abrahamic prophets as mentioned in the earliest Vedas" - I'm looking forward to the sources which establish this kind of connection between the Abrahamic profets and the Vedas.

All of this needs to be sourced. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order[edit]

@245CMR: Such arguements should be avoided, see this and that. Also, if we take tyhis arguement into consideration, but this is not proper reason. Please don't start edit war, for the reasons which seems totally improper and the edits seems to be POV pushing. Please you were the one who changed the sequence, you should please provide the reason. It was already also Neutrality. Also some comments like What if Gautama Buddha........ seems too inappropriate. Is it like, here you are not for religion, no one is of speific religion, as of me. Are you here for religion. Do you really do it for proving your religious ideology superior. Edit Wikipedia neutrally,pleease. You can surely have interest in specific topic, but such being the representative of religious ideology and repreasenting it seems too improper? Your such comments look like you are here categorising other editors into religious categories. No edit should be done for religion. It should be your interest not your religion here. JaMongKut (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least don't make such comments to me, I'm not here to represent any religious ideology, I'm religiously neutral here. PleaseJaMongKut (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 June 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's a distinct consensus against a primary redirect to the prime minister and no consensus for the move. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Rishi → Rishi (term) – Redirect Rishi to Rishi Sunak as a wp:primary redirect, similar to how Barack redirects to Barack Obama, per pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Barack (disambiguation) page only has three entries: Barack Obama, Barack (name) and Barack (brandy). The POTUS is clearly the primary topic between those three. While Sunak is the primary topic at present, will he be the primary topic with long-term significance? The present arrangement is perfectly fine, with the Sanskrit term as the primary topic, and a hatnote for Sunak and the dab page at the top. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per pageviews, Rishi Sunak has over 32x more views than the next most viewed article linked from Rishi (disambiguation), which is Durvasa. The Sanskrit term is only viewed around 337 times a day, less than 2.5% of the views the British prime minister gets per day. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Hatnote is sufficient. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not though, as pageviews demonstrate. It's an inconvenience to readers. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We get it, pageviews by themselves support the move, you've made the same argument three times now. But pageviews are far from the only factor to consider in finding a WP:PTOPIC.
But is it an inconvenience to readers? Only 0.01% of readers from Rishi go to Rishi Sunak [1]; that doesn't even make it into the top 20 sources for incoming pageviews for the latter page [2]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the term but oppose redirection to the prime minster given the lack of long-term significance for the single word, instead move the DAB to the base name and add the PM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per clicksteam and WP:RECENTISM. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 21:23, 3 July 2023 (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 4 July 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure requested 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

– No wp:primary topic per pageviews. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my previous comments. Indeed I expected a new RM would probably be needed as the previous one was mainly focused on a primary redirect. There are enough targets in terms of usage and long-term significance to have no primary topic for the single word. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the term "rishi" has been used for over 3,500 years to refer to an Indian 'seer'; the personal Rishi has only recently beco.e associated, for the larger audience, with the prime minister of Great Britain. And, but maybe I'm old, since when are prime ministers primarily referred to by their first name, instead of their surname? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chakravarti (Sanskrit term) and Raga (Sanskrit term) have also been used for a similar amount of time, yet neither are considered primary. As for the PM being referred to by his first name, you'll see by the redirects to Rishi Sunak that he has been frequently referred to by his first name alone. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. A very similar RM by the same OP was closed as no consensus just yesterday. 162 etc. (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal is different. I am not proposing redirecting Rishi to Rishi Sunak in this request. There are absolutely no grounds for a speedy close. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar, but not the same - and isn't that what move requests deal with? No grounds for speedy close here. Couruu (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The prime minister is not the primary topic, neither is the Sanskrit term. The former arguably has a stronger case than the latter, but neither is clearly a ptopic. These are the situations where it's best to dabify. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. No clear primary topic for this title. The safest bet is to have it go to the disambiguation page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my previous comments. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To save you from scrolling up, the clickstream shows only 5% to Sunak and 3% to the dab & WP:RECENTISM. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 21:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am persuadable to the argument that the overall mass of people named one way can outweigh a single popular topic's claim to primary topic, and the Kannada and Tamil actors as well as Kapoor already attract on the whole more interest than the topic of Rishi itself, but then you'd also have to analyze the overall interest in Category:Rishis and all relevant articles there, so it's probably moot, just like the popularity of Sunak is recent. It's clear that there will be some amount of average English readers who will remember the spelling of the UK prime minister's given name but not his surname, and so helping them use the given name to navigate is worthwhile, I don't think 97+78 clicks to this effect in a month's time warrant a change away from just having a hatnote, which we already have. Let's re-examine this after a few more months to see if there's a new pattern actually evolving. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no primary topic, so disambiguation is preferred over hatnote. Couruu (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to different disambiguation, e.g. Rishi (Indian religion), per WP:ISATERMFOR: The topic of the article is not the term, but the type of person. Please see this diff. I'm surprised no one brought up WP:ISATERMFOR in the previous discussions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per RECENTISM. The last UK PM couldn't outlast a cabbage, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. Srnec (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing redirecting Rishi to Rishi Sunak in this request. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - UK prime ministers are a major deal, even in this day and age, and although the Sanskrit term may be of long-lasting significance, it's hardly a well-known or even particularly significant thing globally. All in all, a disambiguation page is clearly the best route for readers, not giving prominence to either topic and allowing them to make an informed decision about where to go next.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would also argue regarding the recentism argument that there a plenty of people named Rishi both as a given name and as a surname, in addition to other uses of the word in the dab page, so it's not just the PM. - Relinus (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'd use (title) instead of the proposed format. Term makes it sound like something that's hard to describe, like a religious concept but it's clearly a title of sorts. Killuminator (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose like Joshua Jonathan said, since when head of states are being referred to with their first names? Even USA uses last name (Bush, Obama, Trump). England is known for using second names. Currently, there is no need to change anything. If the common usages change in the future, we can create a new RM, but till then, we should keep the thousands of years old term as it is. Why not use hatnotes? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is England known for using second names? People commonly call Boris Johnson just "Boris" but far less so "Johnson" out of context. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale Boris was a bit of a special case because Johnson is too common. May, Cameron, Brown and Blair were very much referred to by surname Couruu (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several other competing topics as well – e.g. two actors known mononymously. The PM is not the only alternative topic – there are a lot of them. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom. Clear absence of a primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 21:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anybody see my remark about WP:ISATERMFOR? I haven't noticed any relevant remarks. The subject of the article is not the term, but the type of person. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that remark. "Term" would imply a dictionary, which this is not. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still oppose, but Agree if this is moved. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 22:57, 9 August 2023 (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.

followup to previous move discussion[edit]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Rishi indicates that in September '23, there was a total incoming traffic of 10.2k, total outgoing 1.7k, and in there there were 78 identified clickstreams of Rishi Sunak at #5, and 61 of Rishi (disambiguation) at #9. In total that's about 8% of outgoing clickstreams and about 1.35% of the total views. --Joy (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rishi&oldid=1211279390"