Talk:Parliament of the World's Religions

Criticism

Item deleted as it wasn't a genuine and direct criticism of the parliament but a misplaced rhetorical polemic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

hi. I am not up for wikipedia editing, but I am an eyewitness here (for the 2018 convention) and the entry as written does not feel accurate to me. my account is that the Dalai Lama was not in attendance but gave a live video address at the opening event. happy editing friends! 2601:602:87E:4D90:DC42:1E59:AFC9:2CB2 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Then cite your sources and make the edits. No one else can do that for you. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a small entry under World Parliament of Religions which this article is meant to supplement or replace.

POV Title

• This article is obviously aimed at propagating the achievements of Swami Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. The rest of the material has just been shoved in carelessly. It would be proper to name this article Swami Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions. If a proper article on the World Parliament of Religions is to be developed by the authors, Swami Vivekananda will merely occupy a small part of it. -- Seejee 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

Indeed. The great chunk of Vivekananda text is presented as a manifesto. 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There has hardly been any change over the last three months. Isn't it enough time to take action on my POV tag? How much more time is required? Are all the admins sleeping? If nothing is going to be done, someone may please enlighten me about the rules in Wikipedia. -- Seejee 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This is the second time Bharatveer has removed the POV title merely saying that it is unnecessary. Nothing much has been added since I first placed the POV tag. It is merely propaganda for Swami Vivekananda. I don't mind the propaganda but then it should be properly labelled. You cannot mark it as the Parliament of World Religions, without mentioning the numerous others speakers who spoke at the Parliament and was appreaciated more than Swami Vivekananda was. What about the Christian missionaries who damned the devdasis in Hindu temples? You just can't hide all that and talk merely of Swami Vivekananda. This is not a propaganda forum. All facts must be properly placed. Can someone please put up what the Christian missionaries spoke about Hinduism and Swami Vivekananda's response to that? -- Seejee 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more information

Here [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 11:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda 1953 at Rishikesh Parliament of the World's Religions is not mentioned, why not?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 12:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are there two of them (of Swamiji Vivekananda, I mean)?

88.72.2.161 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the guy in question 1953 is named Swami Sivananda (there are three of them with similar names, as it seems to me [2]) and not Vivekananda, as I have written erronously. 88.72.2.161 13:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Brunton has mentioned another one in 1938, saying that: Do not label yourself. If you say Hinduism, opponents will rise up and say Christianity. If you say Vedanta philosophy, they will oppose it with Western philosophy. Vivekananda's Vedanta was welcome and triumphant at the Chicago's World Fair of 1893. But at New York's World Fair in 1938, no exhibit or lecture by the Vedanta or Hindu Faith (or indeed any non-Christian and non-Judaic faith) was allowed. Thus the Ramakrishna Mission being labeled as a sect aroused suspicion and enmity. Therefore, form no cult, tie no label. Be forewarned and thus forearmed.

taken from wisdomsgoldenrod.org/publications/cahn/PBThesisPt1.doc

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note

The World's Columbian Exposition is also called The Chicago World's Fair = 1893 Chicago World's Fair

quite confusing, is it not?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.161 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which religions?

Which religions were represented at this event? Minaker (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that Sikhs were not represented at the Parliament, but, in the book Luminous Passage by Charles Prebish he writes, "Although the vast majority of participants were Christian, ample representation came from Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists as well." I hope someone can clarify fully what groups were represented at the Parliament.

Catholic participation

It would be interesting of we could note down the extent of Roman Catholic participation at the Parliament. Until the Second Vatican Council, the Church was mostly hostile to the interfaith movement, but its attitude underwent a significant change during that period. In any event, the current article doesn't mention anything about the Council and how its influence made it possible for many individual Christians to participate in inter-religious discussions. ADM (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate

I think the article for the 1893 Chicago event should be separated from the activities of the post-1993 revival group, which has no real connection to it (not even in name, anymore). The fact is, after the 1893 Congress hundreds of interfaith groups arose. While the "Council for the Parliament of the World's Religions" is one of the most significant, they are a different phenomenon than the predecessor which inspired them. 118.165.204.116 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sri Swami Mayatitananda

Why is Sri Swami Mayatitananda singled out for so much attention in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.30.73 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal organisation

There should be more detail about the formal organisation, called the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (official site). Perhaps a dedicated section without the need for a dedicated article or stub. Details could cover the organisation's history, founders, structure and purpose.

I created the above named redirect to this article.

— RW Marloe (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Financial

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/parliament-of-the-worlds-religions-survives-financial-crunch_n_3096516.html--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo in 1893 Parliament section?

The following from the article makes no sense. Is the "1893" a typo for "1993" or something else?: "Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists. (It would not be until the 1893 Parliament that these religions and spiritual traditions would be represented.)" Bhami (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1893 is no typo. --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is; otherwise, the sentence makes no sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

add topic

🙏🙏🙏State the purpose and conditions of the Chicago World Conference of Religions.🙏 शिकागो विश्व धर्म सम्मेलन उद्देश्य और शर्तों को बताइए। 202.41.10.109 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

History

As an opening sentence, "Another principal organizer was the Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, a Unitarian," leaves much to the imagination. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)