DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Bhakti

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Hatnote to Bhakt (slang)

[edit]

@Asteramellus: You recently reverted me for adding a hatnote to Bhakt (slang). But, WP:HRULES#4 and WP:ONEOTHER specifically require that a hatnote be added from the primary topic of a title to the alternative articles on the same title. Here, the title Bhakt is a primary topic that redirects to this article. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 04:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom Thanks for highlighting the two policies - however, adding such pejorative political term would add unnecessary confusion on this page. Bhakti is a spiritual concept - a totally different domain - someone looking for such political pejorative term would not come to this page by mistake. e.g. the policy says "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." I do see that "Bhakta" redirects to this page, and again, it is a spiritual concept. Hope this helps.
Also just a suggestion to consider (don't want to discuss that page here though) - I had a quick look at that page, and I see that possibly, may want to look into moving content to related political page(s) instead of having a separate page (e.g. see Cult of personality#India) - that would be more encyclopedic. I see that the page was nominated for AfD and someone had raised concern for Wikipedia:OR. Asteramellus (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bhakt redirects here, because it is the WP:PTOPIC and it is a long-standing standard to link disambiguated articles in hatnotes from PTOPIC, even when it is a completely different concept. It should not cause any confusion, it actually resolves it. That is the whole point of hatnotes. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 01:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sanskrit term "Bhakta" (not Bhakt) redirects here because it is tied to this primary topic - someone who engages in devotion (bhakti). Using any term in derogatory/pejorative way in political sense to mock or criticize or label doesn't make the term reasonable possibility for a reader to land on primary topic page by mistake that it needs such hatnotes. I am open to seeing what others think about this. Also, for example, see this Woke (pejorative) - might be helpful to add a section on some other related (political) page to add such details and redirect that page. Asteramellus (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bhakt also redirects here. And Woke (pejorative) would have been hatnoted from Woke if it were a different subject. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CX Zoom, I think a hatnote isn't appropriate in this case because hatnotes are meant for topics that can be referred to by the same title, not just conceptually related ones. I took a look at the policies you've cited but I also looked at WP:RELATED, which offers more detail on hatnote usage. It says that hatnotes are for topics that may be referred to by the same name, which is an important distinction; otherwise, we could justify hatnotes between any two similar concepts (like drum and drummer). The policy also explicitly states that hatnotes are not for topics that are merely related in meaning. So, while Bhakt (slang) may share a sense of devotion with bhakti, the connection of meaning doesn’t seem to meet the criteria for a hatnote. Swirlymarigold (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everyone here overlooking the fact that Bhakt (the basetitle), which is an alternative transliteration of Bhakta, redirects here? You are not reading WP:RELATED with the background context:-
Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title, of the article or any of its redirects. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic: (emphasis added)
And the slang detives from the same meaning, here Bhakt(i) refers to devotion to god, there Bhakt(i) refers to devotion towards Modi. So, even if the first clause weren't supportive of my position, the further clause would require the pejorative to have a subsection in this article:-
Instead of using a disambiguation hatnote in such cases, it is better to summarize the topic Extraterrestrial life in popular culture under a subsection of Extraterrestrial life in conjunction with the {{main}} template. (emphasis added)
—CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 00:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[[WP:NOHATNOTE]] says it's preferable to not have a hatnote when the title isn't ambiguous. Bhakti is pretty unambiguous as a term related to religion. Also, the term 'bhakt' redirecting here isn't ambiguous itself either because nearly all academic sources use 'bhakta' for the religious meaning and 'bhakt' for the political sense. It seems fine to remove the 'Bhakt' page since there is already a 'Bhakt (slang)' page. Swirlymarigold (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my argument at the RfD page linked below for a rebuttal. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Swirlymarigold I agree with your points, but as CX Zoom mentioned, see discussions at RfD for this. There is a suggestion to "create" the page for Bhakta and add details - and I guess then redirect Bhakt there. However, I see your points and also think (or thought) that Bhakt page be "deleted" since the usage of misspelled word "Bhakt" is minimal - see ngram. Asteramellus (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is nowhere close to minimal. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Bhakt" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Bhakt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 21 § Bhakt until a consensus is reached. Asteramellus (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Bhakta

[edit]

Same subject

[edit]

Obviously same subject. Bhakta is a practicioner of bhakti. --Altenmann >talk 14:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann Thanks for noting this. There is some background detail that I will briefly summarize, but if time, if you can look at discussion here on this page, and the redirect discussion for "Bhakt" to understand the background details.
I do agree with you, but by creating "Bhakta" page, I was trying to avoid confusions due to (unnecessary) complexity / confusion introduced with a hatnote for "Bhakt (slang)" on this page and also with pages such as "Bhakt" (a spelling seems used in other Indian languages and a recently added redirect), "Bhakta" (actual used term in academia and reliable sources - related to Bhakti and a long standing redirect to Bhakti), "Bhakt (slang)" (which was originally titled "Bhakt" and recently renamed). Seems "Bhakt (slang)" was nominated for deletion, but looks like decision was keep. "Bhakt" (without the ending "a") I had nominated for redirect discussion to get deleted, but from discussions, one editor had strong opinion to keep, after which a "middle" solution was to create "Bhakta" so that "Bhakt" (a misspelling to me, or I guess used just in slang way or by media - not sure) can redirect to "Bhakta" and I guess a hatnote can be added there. I think ideal encyclopedic way would be to have just "Bhakti", which has/can include details about "Bhakta" in true sense. I am open to discussions to keep this topic encyclopedic and avoid any complexity / confusions. I do strongly think that if "Bhakt" redirect is kept (and if a hatnote is to be added somewhere for the slang), I think "Bhakta" should be kept to redirect "Bhakt" there and have some sort of reference for the slang use there. Sorry, hope this helps give some clarity! Asteramellus (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Bhakta in Bhakti. Bhakta should be redirected to this article as primary topic. A bolded Bhakta should be in the lead here Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Bhakta gets a proper section on this page it would be okay to merge it here to keep things simple. Zionites redirects to Zionism which would be analogous to then Bhakta redirecting to Bhakti as it was earlier. Swirlymarigold (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is OK to have separate articles on people and religions, such as Christians and Christianity, Jews and Judaism, Hindus and Hinduism, Muslims and Islam, etc. We don't always do it, but it's OK to do it. The rationale for a merge should be for more reason than two subjects are related. Heat and cold are both about temperature, but we still have articles on them. There could be an argument that Bhakta is not a notable enough topic by itself, so there wouldn't be enough material to justify a worthwhile article. On looking at the Bhakta article, I note that the sources are all about Bhakti, and there is little to say in the Bhakta article that is not essentially duplicating what is (or should be) in the Bhakti article. As such it seems appropriate to do the merge, and as folks say, have a mention in the article that someone who follows the concept of Bhakti is known as a bhakta. There appears to be a consensus to do the merge, and it is appropriate that it is done so. I will do the merge in the next few days unless someone feels they can develop the Bhakta article sufficiently to justify it remaining as a standalone article. SilkTork (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann This is open since few months. Just want to check if you are ok with closing this as "no Consensus" or you want to keep this open for discussion? Asteramellus (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see that it is "no consensus" while only you are opposing mi while writing "I do agree with you" and not really giving strong arguments why they must be separate. The page "Bhakta has almost no content, if you remove its definition and section "Etymology", which is really poor compared with what written in Bhakti. --Altenmann >talk 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asteramellus, there is a consensus to merge. Even you have indicated that you are in favour of a merge. I see no objections. I will wait a little longer for any additional comments, then if there are no objections I will do the merge, and redirect Bhakta to Bhakti. SilkTork (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Altenmann, SilkTorn. Sorry for all the confusions here. Agree that I am/was in favor of a merge, with a concern for what I have mentioned before - and the page was created as a "middle" solution. If we merge and have Bhakta redirect to Bhakti, I strongly feel that the slang term "Bhakt (slang)" should not be part of Bhakti page's hatnote, which was the reason for creation for the Bhakta page.
I also looked at what Swirlymarigold mentioned Zionites/Zionism (and also Zionist and Zionist as a pejorative) - similar to Bhakti/Bhakta here and if we keep things simple and similar to that, Bhakta can be a redirect to Bhakti, and no hatnotes on Bhakti for any other articles.
Just one clarification needed here - would the page "Bhakt" (without the ending "a") also redirect to "Bhakti"? (Again, as I have mentioned before, I do not agree to keep the "Bhakt" page, but that is not part of discussion here.) Asteramellus (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is Bhakt (pejorative) article. Per our rules, if Bhakt redirects to Bhakti, then the "{{for}}" disambig hatnote must be added to it. By the way, the page Bhakt (pejorative) needs a serious cleanup. I did remove large chunks of original research. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Altenmann. Don't want to take up more time, but for clarity - the pejorative exists (good that you were able to do cleanup there), and this hatnote change started these discussions including the redirect for deletion nomination for "Bhakt" page.
Regarding the hatnote, e.g. originally it was ""Bhakta" redirects here; not to be confused with Bakhta." So, per the rules you mentioned, Bhakta hatnote isk ok, and given that Bhakt redirect for delete closed as "keep", as you said per rules, that hatnote has to be there, but adding "For the pejorative, see Bhakt (slang)." is not appropriate on Bhakti page. If this sounds ok, I can make the edits needed for merge, or feel free to do them and close merge. Asteramellus (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy for you to do the merge Asteramellus. A decision needs to be made as to which topic Bhakt belongs with - Bhakti or Bhakt (pejorative). I would suggest, from doing a quick Google, that as Bhakt is more often used in the religious rather than political sense, that Bhakt should redirect here, with a hatnote to Bhakt (pejorative) rather than the other way round. However, my Google searches are going to default to Western sources, and it may well be that Indian sources would be using bhakt in the political sense, and that most readers typing in "bhakt" would be Indians looking for the political meaning. So I will leave the decision as to where to direct Bhakt up to you and any other others. SilkTork (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As see on the redirect for deletion nomination for "Bhakt" page, Bhakt is not generally used in academic english term, and that's why it was suggested for deletion. Also see this ngram viewer. Given the previous arguments to keep Bhakt as redirect, because it is a non-english usage/spelling for "Bhakta", ideally it should redirect to "Bhakti" (if not deleted). Hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put Bhakt into Google, then then click on Books. I got 30 pages of results. Many of those were regarding people who had been given the name Bhakt, but there are plenty enough using the term as a devotional follower (enough for it to be considered notable enough for an article, though not much could be said, so pointing readers here would be more appropriate). So it has been used enough for there to be a direction to the reader to come to this article where the term could be briefly given, with an explanation that it refers to an alternative spelling of Bhakta, a devoted religious follower. The debate is not if readers who type in "Bhakt" should be directed here, it is in the manner of that directing. If I was the one doing the merge I would have Bhakt redirect here, with a hatnote to point to Bhakt (pejorative). But I am aware that I am not in India, and that the Bhakt (pejorative) article suggests that currently in India the term is mostly used in a political connection, so I defer to those based in India who are better placed to make that judgement, because if that is the case, then most readers typing in Bhakt would be looking for political description. SilkTork (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

[edit]
  • @SilkTork Thanks for the merge. From the discussion here, I don't think there is consensus on including "For the political term, see Bhakt (pejorative)." as hatnote. I will remove that - please start discussion about that here first. It would be good to consider other similar pages such as what has been mentioned earlier in here - "Zionites/Zionism (and also Zionist and Zionist as a pejorative)" in the discussion. Asteramellus (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit war over this by removing the hatnote. It is an appropriate use of the hatnote. Readers who land here because they have typed in bhakt and are looking for the political term need some guidance as to where to find it. There is amble evidence as I mentioned above that bhakt is the appropriate term in English for a follower of Bhakti, therefore it is right and proper that bhakt redirects here. If you feel that the majority of readers typing in bhakt are actually looking for the political term then you need to supply evidence for that, or indicate where such evidence may be found. SilkTork (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork Don't think I am edit-warring here - just want to get discussion here (separate from the move discussion) considering how such political term usage are handled elsewhere on wikipedia. Asteramellus (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words above: "I will remove that". Such assertive, somewhat aggressive wording, is concerning. Especially after there was discussion, agreement, and I implemented the merge. The time for dissent has passed. I offered to do the merge earlier on. You said you would do it. I accepted that. You did not do the merge, so I did as I originally said I would do. I implemented the consensus. Unless you can provide evidence, as I suggest, that there is a greater need for bhakt to redirect to the political term, then you should accept the consensus is against you, and move on. SilkTork (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't use the words "I will remove that" in any "assertive" way - I used it so that proper discussion can happen for including such usage in hatnote. I don't think merge and the hatnote are related, so based on what others have said here, doing the merge is the consensus here, and I am not disagreeing with the merge. I don't think the hatnote usage has been discussed here in-depth, particularly the point about other similar pages. It would be good if we can outline the points in a separate topic and analyze other similar Wikipedia pages, and how such usages are handled and decide the best way for this. Asteramellus (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind discussing the hatnote, but I would need to look at how other pages handle it. I had looked at the Zionites redirect earlier but it would be helpful to have other similar examples Swirlymarigold (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Swirlymarigold and SilkTorn. I tried looking at Zionism related pages and few others.
  • e.g Zionist as a pejorative is a standalone article, Zionist redirects to Zionism; Zionism does not have a hatnote for pejorative page and has no mention of pejorative usage.
  • Also looked at others e.g. Feminism/Feminazi (although it is not the same word). Feminazi (a pejorative term related to Feminist) is also a separate article, Feminist redirects to Feminism, Feminism has no hatnote for Feminazi.
However, want to note that there is a disambiguation hatnote on both Zionism and Feminism, but those disambiguation pages do not include the related pejorative terms either. So seems, pejorative usage is kept as unrelated.
I also reviewed a bit few wiki policies to understand how an encyclopedia would support such hatnote. I think adding a hatnote for Bhakt (pejorative) on this Bhakti article violates few policies. e.g WP:TRHAT - adding a political slur as a hatnote at the very top of a religious concept article seems undue and creates confusion for reader by implying the two are related even though they are not related. Also, WP:COATRACK - I think it is not NPOV to give such undue promotion to a political label on this page.
I also reviewed other policies like WP:SIMILAR, which could be used to favor such hatnote, but seems above policies (and the example of Zionist) might suggest not to keep such hatnote. Also, want to note here that the actual English term that redirects here is "Bhakta". Bhakt redirect (without the ending "a") is a recently added redirect and both "Bhakta" and "Bhakt" meaning same as SilkTorn mentioned - "devoted religious follower" - but google ngram viewer shows comparatively very limited usage of "Bhakt" in sources, and even further limited usage when looking closer at sources because many are for people names.
@SilkTork, it would be good to get your thoughts on this. My thinking, particularly considering how Zionism/Zionist handles this and the policies, is that such a political label hatnote should not be added to this page. Also, @Altenmann since you had tried to edit the pejorative page, and now that the merge is done, if you have any thoughts on this. Asteramellus (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asteramellus, I have removed the Bakhta hatnote, as Bakhta does not redirect here, and I have restored the Bhakt hatnote because Bhakt does redirect here. The discussion above is looking at the wrong aspects. A redirect hatnote is placed on an article when a search term redirects to an article which has a similar name, but may not be exactly what the reader is looking for. As Bhakt redirects here, there has to be a hatnote in place to advise readers where to find the article they may be looking for. Any reader who puts in bhakt, and is expecting an article on the political term, will land here, and unless there is guidance for them, they will be confused and unsatisfied. So, while bhakt redirects here, we need that hatnote. Please do not remove it until this discussion is resolved.

What needs to be discussed, as I have indicated above, is what should be done with Bhakt. I suggest that we make Bhakt into a disamb page with reference to this article and the political term, so people can make their own choice as to which article they want. And then the hatnote can be removed from this article. Would that satisfy everyone? SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork Just to clarify - Bhakta (not Bakhta), which is the correct English word for the "devotee" also redirects here, just like the one without ending "a" (Bhakt, which is not an English word, and seems not used much in reliable sources as per the ngram viewer for "devotee").
Before considering your suggestion, would like to discuss this:
- want to understand similarity of this scenario with Zionist, which redirects to Zionism, which has hatnote for Zionism (disambiguation) with no mention of Zionist as a pejorative.
- Nominate Bhakt for AfD (I can do that), since seems this word (without the ending-a) has mostly pejorative usage. Asteramellus (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ping me, I have this page watched. Yes, Bhakta redirects here - I set that redirect up after I did the merge. Bakhta (different spelling) does not redirect here, it is a disamb page, which has a link here. Bhakt currently redirects here as there are many English language sources which use or mention the term as a devotee or follower - the use mentioned in the article. That use, a devotee or follower, has been taken up by the Indian press to describe the ardent supporters of the Indian prime minister. I am uncertain of the notability of the political usage of the term. It appears to me to be more a dictionary definition than an article. It may certainly be worth looking at what the consensus is for deleting Bhakt (pejorative). I would say that as we have an article on Bhakti, and that the people who engage in Bhakti are bhakta or bhakt, then it would be appropriate to have those terms as redirects to this article. Your concern is that there are not enough sources in English which use bhakt to mean someone who engages in bhakti. As I suggested above, you can do a Google book search yourself, it doesn't take long. Type "bhakt" into Google, then click on "books". Results will vary depending on location. Here is the result of my search. That's over one million hits. Now, not all of them are going to be related to bhakti, but I have randomly checked some, and there are enough books talking directly about bhakt in relation to bhakti to satisfy me that it is an appropriate term to redirect to this article. To fully understand the concept of a redirect, and why we don't generally delete them, please read Wikipedia:Redirect. Please do read it carefully, paying particular attention to WP:R#HARMFUL, WP:R#DELETE, and WP:R#KEEP. Note that Bhakt has been in existence on Wikipedia as a redirect since 2016: [1]. It has a complex history because it has been moved to Bhakt (slang) and then Bhakt (pejorative) and now has been restored as a redirect. This is not the sort of useful and well established redirect we delete.
Here are a few books which use the term bhakt: Jains in the World, Oxford University Press, Indian Saints, PROGRESSIVE INDIAN, Walking with Pilgrims, Routledge. There are many more. I do not wish to spend my spare time doing what you can do yourself. The word is used in modern and reliable sources. Many such sources. Please just look for yourself. As I say, I think making bhakt into a disamb page might work, even if it is temporary because the Bhakt (pejorative) page may get deleted, because then it would go back to redirecting here, where it should redirect. SilkTork (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilkTork for taking so much time and sorry - I did not realize that the history of the original Bhakt redirect is at Bhakt (pejorative) with multiple moves. I was only looking at the current Bhakt history, which is fairly recent. I was thinking that there must be a reason why Zionism (disambiguation) does not list Zionist as a pejorative, and the disamb suggestion you gave may be somewhat similar. I was just trying to think through one more solution based on the ngram viewer - to delete the Bhakt redirect (again, my mistake that I did not realize that Bhakt is not recent and has a history at the pejorative page moves). Hope this helps clarify my thoughts. Don't want to take up your time further! Asteramellus (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We tend not to create a disamb page for a term which has only two targets, and where one of those targets is clearly primary (this page has 6,327 pageviews in 30 days, while Bhakt (pejorative) has only 494), so on the surface it would seem more appropriate to keep the bhakt redirect pointing here with a hatnote pointing to Bhakt (pejorative). However, if in your experience it would be just as likely that someone typing in bhakt would be looking for the political term, then I think a disamb page would be justified. I'd like to see another voice in support of that, before setting it up. SilkTork (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a disambiguation page does not make sense since the pejorative page topic is clearly distinct from bhakti in religion. But the pejorative page does have some discussion that might be useful for the discussion here. Swirlymarigold (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]