Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Archive 3

Team Tantra

A few fellow editors are forming a team with the express purpose of bringing the Tantra article to Featured Article status. For more details stop by Talk:Tantra. You might also add to the peer review the article is undergoing or leave some action items on it's to do list. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion

See Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F about the proper word for murti puja and etc.Bakaman 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I am looking to find or create a page on naming conventions when it comes to those who faith lies in Hinduism (for lack of better words), as I am stumbling to find how to correctly title pages. For example, does one use Ravindra Svarupa Dasa, or Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu? Or, in another case, we have Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj, who's real name is Ram Kripalu Tripathi. What is the correct naming for this article? Jagadguru and Maharaj are both considered honorific titles - should they be included? Chopper Dave 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Dharmic) should give you a rough guide. In general, the title uses the common name, not the official name. Eg. Mahatma Gandhi, not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I think in your examples, the non-real name, because that is the name they are famous with. Also see A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whose birth name was Abhay Charan De. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism in Armenia up for deletion

<_<...--D-Boy 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

There is a significant amount of colonial and Christian missionary or European ethno-centric BIAS that is often presented as superior “linguistic” evidence in representations of Indian religious scriptures and history on documents available on Wikipedia. These sources are fundamentally biased and/or anti-Hindu in nature, as inferred in a March 22, 2007 ruling in a California court in terming use of these sources in deciding content on Hinduism or India in public school text books by the California State Education Board. Specifically, the California Board had previously consulted Harvard Sanskrit Studies Professor Mike Witzel, known for his anti-Hindu bias. Mike Witzel’s content, and that of his like, is frequently cited in these pages as “mainstream scholarship”.

Hulagu, the fact that Witzel is Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard speaks to his authority and credibility. JFD 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, Michael Witzel is a severely DIS-credited "academic" known for his anti-Hindu bias in support of Aryan racist theories; and academic departments like his are in the process of being shutdown for lack of support, despite a growing interest in India. Here is the background on Witzel:

Ever since Witzel moved to Harvard from Europe (he is German by birth), its Department of Sanskrit and India Studies has been in a state of turmoil. He was forced to step down as department chairman in 1995, following student complaints about his conduct. Witzel threatened to sue a student for asking some questions. Now Hindu parents and groups have sued the State of California for violating their children's civil rights. Curiously for an academic, legal troubles seem to dog Witzel wherever he goes.

We may never know who initiated Witzel's California campaign-- whether Alan Bersin gave Witzel a chance to redeem himself following his disastrous performance at Harvard, or if Witzel saw an opening to get students and funding with Bersin at the helm of the Department of Education in California. Email traffic surrounding IER (Indo-Eurasian Research), an Internet group co-founded by Witzel, suggests that the idea came from some of its members, possibly one Steve Farmer, Witzel's closest associate. Farmer lives in California from where he has been reporting on developments in the state.

Problems at Harvard are part of a wider problem in Western academia in the field of Indo-European Studies. Several 'Indology' departments--as they are sometimes called--are shutting down across Europe. One of the oldest and most prestigious, at Cambridge University in England, has just closed down. This was followed by the closure of the equally prestigious Berlin Institute of Indology founded way back in 1821. Positions like the one Witzel holds (Wales Professor of Sanskrit) were created during the colonial era to serve as interpreters of India. They have lost their relevance and are disappearing from academia. This is the real story, not teaching Hinduism to California children. --- From the "Aryan Invasion of California: Global Background" by N.S. Rajaram, May 27, 2007

Hulagu 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

The Wikipedia pages reviewed to have significant bias include, but not limited to: Vedas, RigVeda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Brahmana, Sathpatha Brahmana, Vedic Period, Indo-Aryans, History of India, and Out of India Theory.

Specifically, here are some of the areas of bias:

1. Statements that Vedas were "composed". I have tried to change it to a neutral "recorded". This area needs parity with articles on the Koran and Bible in the Wikepedia. There is not a single reference to "compose" on Koran or in the first few screens of Bible, and most statements on the Torah say they were revealed or inspired by God.

Qur'an

Opening introduction to the Koran on Wikipedia:

The Qur'ān [1] (Arabic: القرآن ;al-ķur’ān, literally "the recitation"; also sometimes transliterated as Quran or Koran) is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, consider the text in its original Arabic to be the literal word of Allah[2] revealed to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years[3][4], and view the Qur'an as God's final revelation to humanity.[5][6]

Compare it to RigVeda:

2Based on internal evidence (philological and linguistic), the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700–1100 BCE (the early Vedic period) in the Punjab (Sapta Sindhu),[1]

Bible

The first reference below, refers to composition of TRANSLATIONS of the Bible, even that appears several screens below the top. Other references are mainly in the section on criticism.

Some time in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, the Torah was translated into Koine Greek, and over the next century, other books were translated (or composed) as well. This translation became known as the Septuagint and was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, and later by Christians.

Versions of the Septuagint contain several passages and whole books beyond what was included in the Masoretic texts of the Tanakh. In some cases these additions were originally composed in Greek, while in other cases they are translations of Hebrew books or variants not present in the Masoretic texts.

Textual criticism refers to the investigation of the Bible as a text, and addresses questions such as authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention.

Subsequent scholars, notably Eduard Reuss, Karl Heinrich Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, turned their attention to the order in which the documents had been composed (which they deduced from internal clues) and placed them in the context of a theory of the development of ancient Israelite religion, suggesting that much of the Laws and the narrative of the Pentateuch were unknown to the Israelites in the time of Moses. These were synthesized by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who suggested a historical framework for the composition of the documents and their redaction (combination) into the final document known as the Pentateuch.

The development of the hypothesis has not stopped with Wellhausen. Wellhausen's hypothesis, for example, proposed that the four documents were composed in the order J-E-D-P, with P, containing the bulk of the Jewish law, dating from the post-Exilic Second Temple period (i.e., after 515 BC); but the contemporary view is that P is earlier than D, and that all four books date from the First Temple period (i.e., prior to 587 BC).

2. Frequent citation of "mainstream scholars" or "majority of scholars" everywhere to support the biased presentations. There is no definition of what "mainstream" or "majority" means. One administrator (JFD) attempted to define mainstream as material from “peer-reviewed” journals, a standard that has not been applied for material on other religious literature on Wikipedia, AND, does not reflect more recent peer reviewed and published books that have demonstrated the untenable bias of linguistic “scholars” or Indo European studies scholars.

Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ

A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification. Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).

Hulagu, if you can cite more recent peer-reviewed material, then it would in fact be welcome, but don't try to claim that non-peer-reviewed material is peer-reviewed, as you did with that Kalyanaraman thing. JFD 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, The Kalyanaraman article was a detailed review of Peer-Reviewed published scholarship from 1999-present. It had littel from Kalyanaraman himself other than an extensive reproduction of text and reference. I asked you to how to upload the file itself as part of the reference, so it was available for review. Here are a few from several dozen extracts from Kalyanaraman:

From: Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

"For over two hundred years, a series of historians, linguists, folklorists, and archaeologists have tried to re-create a lost culture. Using ancient texts, medieval records, philological observations, and archaeological remains they have described a world, a religion, and a people older than the Sumerians, with whom all history is said to have begun. Those who maintained this culture have been called “Indo-Europeans” and “Proto-Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans,” and “Ancient Aryans,” “Japhetites,” and “wiros,” among many other terms. These people have not left behind any texts, no objects can definitely be tied to them, nor do we know any “Indo-European” by name. In spite of that, scholars have stubbornly tried to reach back to the ancient “Indo-Europeans,” with the help of bold historical, linguistic, and archaeological reconstructions, in the hopes of finding the foundation of their own culture and religion there.

The fundamental thesis of this study is that these prehistoric peoples have preoccupied people in modern times primarily because they were, to use the word of Claude Levi-Strauss, “good to think with,” rather than because they were meaningful historical actors. The interest in the “Indo-Europeans,” “Aryans” and their “others” (who have varied through history from Jews to savages, Orientals, aristocrats, priests, matriarchal peasants, warlike nomads, French liberals, and German nationalists), stemmed-and still stems-from a will to create alternatives to those identities that have been provided by tradition. The scholarship about the Indo-Europeans, their culture, and their religion has been an attempt to create new categories of thought, new identities, and thereby a future different from the one that seemed to be prescribed (Arvidsson 2006, p. xi).”

“On a more general level, the debate is about whether there is something in the nature of research about Indo-Europeans that makes it especially prone to ideological abuse-perhaps something related to the fact that for the past two centuries, the majority of scholars who have done research on the Indo-Europeans have considered themselves descendants of this mythical race (Arvidsson 2006, p.3).”

From: Lincoln, Bruce (1999), Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

“Given the unhappy example of scholarship on myth, particularly that on Aryan or Indo-European myth, is one forced to conclude that scholarly discourse is simply another instance of ideology in narrative form? The topic is a painful but important one for me, as I continue my struggle to extricate from a discipline, a paradigm, and a discourse that I adopted early in my academic career with insufficient critical reflection. To a certain extent, writing this book has been an attempt to undo my (Lincoln’s) earlier lack of awareness and make amends for it (Lincoln 1999, p. xii).”

“As a student of history of religions, I (Lincoln) was taught that Fredric Max Muller inaugurated our discipline but his work on “comparative mythology” foundered on his own incompetence, as did the later attempt of Sir James George Frazer. The field was rescued, so the narrative went, by Dumezil with the support of some talented colleagues, Wikander, Otto Hoffer, Jan De Vries, and Emile Benveniste among them. Older scholars also entered my awareness, including Hermann Guntert, Herman Lommel, Walter Wust, Rudolf Much, Franz Altheirm, Richard Reitzenstein, and Hans Heinrich Schaeder, and many of these men were deeply involved with the Nazi movement. To that side of their work, however, I was largely blind. Instead of dangerous ideologues, I saw talented linguists, erudite Orientalist (a word not yet suspect), and trailblazing students of myth. Whatever questions I had—and they were not many—were deftly deflected. The “Aryan thesis” was fundamentally sound, I was told, although Hitler and Co. had badly abused it. But no one spoke of “Aryans’” anymore or located their (presumed) Urheimat in Scandinavia, Germany, or the North Pole. Rather, the postwar discourse dealt with Indo-Europeans, elided questions of race, and placed the origin of this sanitized people off to the east, on the Russian steppes. IN THE PAGES THAT FOLLOW, I (LINCOLN) HOPE TO SHOW THAT THINGS ARE NOT THAT SIMPLE AND THE PROBLEMS—MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL— THAT ATTEND THIS DISCOURSE OR DISCIPLINE ARE NOT SO EASILY RESOLVED (Lincoln 1999, pp. xii-xiv, emphasis added).” Hulagu 22:35, 26 June 2007

“One might think this position [that the English colonialist should convert their Indian “brethren” to the Gospel] would have endeared Max Muller to missionaries, but in fact it did not. Rather, they found him entirely too sympathetic to the “heathen” and suspected him of being insufficiently committed to the faith. Accordingly, in 1860 he was passed over for Oxford’s Boden chair in Sanskrit, which carried responsibility for preparing the Sanskrit-English dictionary, both of which were intended, under the terms of Lt-Col Boden’s will, to advance the conversion of Indians to Christianity, not to foster English understanding or respect for India (Lincoln 1999, p. 68, parenthesis added).”

(UTC)HulaguHulagu 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Selective immediate refutation of presentation of newer or scholarship by Indian-origin scholars, right at the place where a representation is made, in the name of "mainstream scholars". Such refutation is made at the bottom of the page, often in a separate section for material on non-Hindu religions.

4. Presentation of biased representations from Western scholars at the top part of every page as fact without presenting criticisms of such views.

5. Discarding or "deprecating" astronomical, archeological dating references and genetic studies in favor of only arguable linguistic assumptions, especially when much of the linguistic assumptions have since been discredited.

6. Assuming that the horse was not in India prior to 2000BC, to support biased claims, despite evidence to the contrary or attempts to dismiss such evidence without basis.

7. Complete absence of citations of commentaries on the Scriptures by Indian scholars of your like Shankaracharya and Ramanuja - as if the western Indologists were the first to study or comment on these scriptures.

8. Wikipedia administrators (Buddhipriya, JLD, Abecedare) have repeatedly reversed edits to correct bias, raising the possibility that the discredited “linguistic” studies group mafia has taken control of these pages to perpetuate bias.

Recommendation: These pages must be rewritten from the scratch to eliminate all bias.

WP:REDFLAG

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JFD (talk • contribs)

please stop crossposting this piece to more talkpages. JFD (talk · contribs) has pointed you to the relevant policy pages at Talk:Rigveda. These issues have been discussed many, many times (much more often than warranted), and if you really want to rehash the debate, you would do well to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy first, and with the past debates on the articles in question after that. dab (𒁳) 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If he's xposting it on various Hinduism article talkpages, he might as well post it here instead of those pages. Many users including myself and Abecedare (talk · contribs) [1] would rather get a broader consensus here.Bakaman 23:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

that's what I'm saying. He is right that far too many of our Hinduism related articles are in a sorry state, but that's because they're full of unreferenced blather more typically than due to some evil conspiracy of Hindu-hating academics. dab (𒁳) 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have 'encyclopedic' religious textbooks at home which include images of Vishnu's avatars mistakenly labelled as Shiva the Hindu god of destruction - so in comparison to that, at least, I don't think we are doing too bad. I would certainly disagree with the statement These pages must be rewritten from the scratch to eliminate all bias, although I would welcome additional perspectives being added in a neutral manner, where relevant, as I'm sure everyone would? Gouranga(UK) 11:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed. But most people lose interest when they realize that writing encyclopedic articles, especially when you are bound to defend your additions wrt WP:NPOV and WP:RS, involves work. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The concern I have is that the academic content is not presented properly; a theory is presented as a proven fact. As an example, in academic literature, Indo-Aryan migration is called a Theory, but Dab threatens edit warring if theory is added to the name to reflect academic literature. [2]. Also when it says “mainstream scholars” it fails to mention that it is mostly “linguistic” scholars. Most archaeologists dealing with South East Asia can not find any evidence of Indo-Aryan Migration – Jim Shaffer is the most vocal. But this is not reflected in the article when we use “mainstream scholars”. This weasel wording needs to be fixed.Sbhushan 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So cite those archaeologists instead of crackpots like Kazanas for whom peer review has to be waived. JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, it appears you misunderstood my point. When it says mainstream scholars it should say mainstream linguistic scholars. Are you conceding that the name of Indo-Aryan migration should be changed to include Theory? For name used in mainstream publications check Witzel, Bryant etc.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If in support of your POV you can cite mainstream scholarship—no matter the field, linguistics or not—then by all means do so.

But don't try to pass something off as peer-reviewed when it's not.

JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The following two Reliable Sources are not crackpots, JFD. One is the leading Indus Valley Civilisation archaeologist, the other is the conclusion of the most recent peer-reviewed genetic study. Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics. That barely qualifies it even as a theory, and is a sad remnant of people, "present" and past, who's POV includes promoting the superiority of the Aryan race. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." — Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998)

"the perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny" — Sanghamitra Sahoo, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, and V. K. Kashyap, A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America, January 13, 2006

---

Priyanath,
Here's what Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," had to say to National Geographic in an interview about the paper:

"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

Priyanath, I would be wary of assuming that those who question "the Indo-Aryan migration" necessarily support "Out of India".

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly — it "may be because" of contact with migrants - which makes it a theory, and only a linguistic theory at that. To be accurate, the article should be titled Indo-Aryan Language Migration Theory. As far as Out of India, I don't for a second assume that those archaeologists and geneticists who have dismissed the Aryan Migration therefore support Out of India. There's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either one—which makes them both theories. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

---

1) Archeologist POV - Bryant(2001:231)-The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views. He quotes Shaffer(1995:139) "Archaeological data indicates that a shift by Indus Valley cultural groups is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C."

2)Would you ask Pope/Church to publish in peer-reviewed litrature before their intrepretation of Bible can be published on Wiki? e.g. Check Bible - Christian theology, none of material is peer-reviewed. It is from a website Believers web. I believe that is the point Hulagu is making. Sbhushan 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Sbhushan, I'll tell you what I told Priyanath: just because someone questions "the Indo-Aryan migration" doesn't necessarily mean they support "Out of India". In the interview I direct Priyanath to above, Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," argues that the people of the Indian subcontinent are indigenous to South Asia, but that Indo-European languages aren't. So by all means cite the peer-reviewed work of bona fide archaeologists who question "the Indo-Aryan migration". But don't claim that peer-reviewed scholarship supports the Out of India theory unless it does so explicitly.
2. Theological interpretation is a separate issue from the dating of the composition of the various books of the Bible. And, with regards to the latter, Yes, I would insist on peer-reviewed sources.

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Priyanath response above to same -- these are linguistic theories and should be presented as theories and not proven fact. Re 2 please see response to Dab at end of this section.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Priyanath & Sbhushan, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in the relevant academic community. Does "the Indo-Aryan migration" have bona fide academic critics? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the relevant academic community, "the Indo-Aryan migration"—though by no means the only point of view—is the predominant one, support for "Out of India" is negligible, and Wikipedia must reflect that. JFD 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm trying to make — which is that the IAM is a theory per mainstream views. It also is a linguistic theory, based on the fact that mainstream archaeologists and the most recent genetic studies find no credible evidence of invasion or migration. These are credible, mainstream, and reliable sources which are not given due weight in the article, but are deprecated to the point of being buried, due entirely to POV and not current academic views. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect WP:UNDUE. Indo Ayan migration is based on only linguistic arguement, but when it says in the article mainstream scholars it implies Archeologist also support it. This is not correct statement. And most of linguistic arguments don't belong on religious articles. Linguistic are minority when religious articles are being discussed.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I suspect none of you understand the depth of the "academic" fraud and bias here, and I sincerely hope you are not part of it: 1. It is disgusting to see all this blatant, proven bias in the name of "scholarship" and presented as such to the lay person looking for information on Wikipedia 2. Descriptions of Hindu religion and scripture on Wiki should have absolutely nothing to do with Sanskrit linguistics or Indo-European studies - the latter, if needed, should be a page by itself, with perhaps just a link to this page at the bottom of Hindu religious scripture. 3. Asking for only or mainly "peer-reviewed" journal references on Hindu scripture is nonsense. The Vedas, etc are religious scripture with commentaries by religious scholars over several thousand years. Surely, you are not suggesting that all these commentaries must be published in some "peer-review" journal in the past 200 years for it to be included in Wiki? I hold two research-based graduate degrees from leading schools in the United States and I know how that system works - it is silly circular logic that has no relevance in situations where the foundational basis for some of these journals, like the Journal of Indo-European Studies, is itself steeped in well-known ideological bias 4. What is consistent with Wiki policy? Presenting the page on Rigveda as a linguistic literary piece under Hindu religion or presenting it, for the most part, from a religious scholarship perspective, as it is on the pages on the Koran, Torah and Bible. 5. Please take a good read of the pages on the Koran, Torah, and Bible and compare them objectively to the pages on the Rigveda and Vedas, and ask yourselves if you are doing even academic" justice ti the Rigveda? 6. Hindu religious scripture is vast. The Vedas alone, if recited in the correct oral tradition, will take approximately 200 hours to recite. The oral tradition was maintained for accent and phonetics for a specific purpose, for example, the word Agni appears more than 200 times, but at each place it is pronounced differently to convey a different meaning and context, all of which would be lost in most written versions. I don't expect a Wiki page on the Rigveda to do justice in describing it, but at least, I expect it not do gross injustice to it by reducing it to some arcane linguistic piece, especially when there is an abundance of rich and varied scholarship available on the religious aspects of it. That is why these pages need a rewrite, and I agree with dab that few have the time for this, but there are respectable scholars and foundations who may do justice to it, but I cant lead them here if it is going to be this messy as it been over several attempts to correct the pages. 7. Perhaps these pages should go before the arbitration council, and if we come to that, the scholars may get involved. Hulagu 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

"Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly these claims are widely known and have been put forth in many reliable sources and published literature. Again a chicken and egg argument. WP:REDFLAG doesnt apply because there is an innate contradiction in the policy. Your interpretation (essentially equivalent to dab's) is not the only one out there, and perhaps Hulagu is ranting because you didnt take time to separate fluff from perfectly reasoned argument. Hualgu is correct in noting that no other religious book has the dating section plastered in the forefront as a pat on the back to Romila Thapar. =Bakaman 21:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the moon landing was faked is also widely known and been put forth in many places. Doesn't make it any less of a fringe theory or exceptional claim.

If 4000 BC has been put forth in many reliable sources, then surely you can come up with something better than a single sentence in an otherwise unrelated article.

JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional scriptures and acharyas equated to fringe theorists? OmG, what a logic! What part of the above bias explanation is not clear? It doesn't have to be called a conspiracy, just a colonial power struggle bias. Sastras and acharyas should be main sources, on par with Abrahamic traditions, while the weak modernist view can have a separate page, as suggested above. If not rewrites then heavy editing would do, possibly by pro-traditional scholars/institutions like Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, etc. Jan 82.208.2.214 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues in regards to dates are also cropping up (amongst others) in the Buddhism and Hinduism article. See these recent edits for example. Gouranga(UK) 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles related to RigVeda, Vedas etc are about religious books. They are NOT about linguistic or how PIE is related to Vedic Sanskrit. These articles should be presented in similar format as other articles on religious books. Dating should be specific to when any hard date can be fixed. A guess from linguistic scholars should be presented as a best guess in the appropriate section. It definitely does NOT belong in lead.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re anti-traditional bias suggesting a corruption of Rig Veda see [3]. Jan 82.208.2.214 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see Hulagu is now down to discussing individual points and individual references (as opposed to ranting about Wikipedia's Hinduism articles in general). This can be done point-by-point on the relevant talkpages instead of this central board. The general situation is like this. People keep throwing fringe literature at us to the point of nausea. Upon discussion, it becomes apparent that the most vocal point-pushers are not aware of the academic debate at all, but have simply harvested their citation from some internet forum. The bulk of these "refereces" can be dismissed as fringe and/or propaganda, and constitute a waste of everybody's time. Once we have cut through that smoke-screen, there remain a few more moderate academic references that can be presented as bona fide minority opinion. Point pushers are as a rule not aware of the relative weight of these sources, and it has to be explained to them in painful detail. This is tiring, and not a bona fide discussion of open minds. People will keep cherry-picking no matter what, and yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a handful of citeable references in the gist of their agenda (out of a huge body of academic literature). I would ask anyone interested in the field to immerse themselves in peer-reviewed literature with an open mind and become acquainted with academic mainstream without wasting people's time on Wikipedia because they refuse to leave their ideological corner based on a cocktail on crackpot opinions and cherry-picked out-of-mainstream soundbites that are passed around on Hindu internet fora. An open mind means that you come to Wikiepedia also in order to learn what academics think, not just to "set things right" according to what you have been told on some popular website or read in some Voice of India publication. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible is also written in PIE daughter language, but you don't find a large section about linguistic in that article. Dating the Bible is a seperate article which is not even referenced in Bible. Same way RigVeda, Vedas etc are article about religious books and should be structure in a similar way as Bible. The rules are same for everyone. This point about how these articles should be presented needs to be discussed on common pages.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan,

The Bible—and also the Qur'an—were both originally written in Semitic languages, which are a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family.

In other words, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an is written in a PIE daughter language as you claim above.

Best, JFD 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So where is the discussion about Semitic languages or Afro-Asiatic language family on Bible? The point being made is that RigVeda or Vedas are religious document and linghistic are minority scholars for religious discussion and should not be given undue weight.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sections discussing the Bible as a text, rather than its contents as a religious document (this list is by no means exhaustive):

• Textual criticism
• Bible versions and translations
• Original language of NT

Of course the inclusion of such material discussion of dating, authorship, editions, is a no brainer for any encyclopedic article on any ancient religion/non-religious text, as even a casual perusal of established encyclopedias, such as Britannica, Encarta shows. That said, it is quite possible that some wikipedia articles are lacking in this regards, in which case those articles should be brought up to expected standard, rather than dumbing down other pages.

Please note that I am not claiming that linguistic analysis is the sole criterion that should be used to establish the dating of religious texts. If there are other pieces of evidence (such as archaeological or contemporary accounts)for which we have reliably and authoritative sources, of course that information can and should be added as long as we take care that the coverage does not give minority or disputed views undue weight.

Finally, I would like to point out that in (both hard and social) sciences and academic usage a "theory" is not simply a "guess", and trying to belittle the concept due to ignorance or deliberate misunderstanding of the term does not enhance ones credibility. If interested, please see some discussion on why "is a theory, not a fact" is a fallacious argument at Evolution is a theory ... not a fact section. Regards. Abecedare 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reworded last sentence to make intended meaning clearer. Abecedare 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An appeal to evolution is not a sound argument. Evolution is more or less an undeniable truth, backed up by a practically soundproof argument and copious amounts of evidence. Global warming is also empirically provable. Dating (esp. when there are no objects) is not empirically provable, it is not falsifiable, and therefore is speculation.Bakaman 00:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, I think I may not have been clear enough: I am not drawing an analogy between dating of texts and evolution. Rather, I am saying that it is as falacious to say, "method X of dating Y is a theory" and therefore a guess/speculation/nonsensical by definition, as it would be to say that "evolution is a theory" and therefore not a fact. If one want to argue against an explanation X that is accepted by mainstream scholarship one needs to explicitly demonstrate its flaws, and not just label it a theory and consider the task done! Of course, wikipedia is not the place for proposing/proving/disproving theories - such reasearch requires years or decades of painstaking effort to undertake and then get published in peer-reviewed literature, from which wikipedia can draw its content.Abecedare 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Abecedare - I don't think that anyone here is trying to say that 'theory' means 'nonsensical'. It simply means ... 'theory'. That said, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is based on far less evidence than evolution. Evolution has significant physical evidence. This IAM theory does not have significant physical evidence (or any, according to Kenoyer and the latest genetic study). It really isn't proven, in the way that evolution is proven. Bad analogy. Even then, I don't think anyone here is trying to 'disprove' the theory, but only to give Due Weight to the huge question marks about the lack of archaeological and genetic evidence, and Due Weight to the fact that it is, at the end of the day, a 'theory' that is lacking in significant ways. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A caveat: My comments are more directly aimed at the Hindu scripture articles than the IAM/AIT/OIT etc, since I am not really up-to-date with the scholarship related to the latter subject (and have therefore never edited those sets of articles). That said, I am not sure what you mean by

1. "a theory is just a ... 'theory' " (paraphrasing), because the non-technical everyday meaning of the term and its use in sciences (again, both physical and social) are quite distinct; in particular in latter use the term does not mean guess or speculation as has been incorrectly stated earlier in this section;
2. No theory is every "proven" (see, Karl Popper's writings) although they can be falsified (as Baka also mentioned above). So saying "X is not proven" is not really as strong an argument against X, as a lay person would think. Rather the standard by which both academia and wikipedia work are current mainstream acceptance of an idea by qualified experts in the area, as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.

I realize that my recent comments are going somewhat off-topc, but I am speaking up only because I noticed some well-known and widely rejected straw-man arguments being raised repeatedly in this section by well-meaning editors. Regards. Abecedare 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear with 'a theory is just a theory'. I'm assuming others here are using the scientific definition of the term. It's not a loaded term for me, meaning 'nonsensical', etc. It just means 'theory'. Speaking scientifically and encyclopedically, AIM is a theory, and the title should say that.ॐ Priyanath talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so that the above comments do not sow further confusion, I'll quickly add that views of prominent religious figures (example, Ramanuja) with regards to the theological or philosophical content of scriptures is by definition noteworthy and there is no requirement for these views to be peer-reviewed and published in academic journals (although such journals can often provide useful secondary explication of the original view). However dating, linguistic or archaeological analysis are academic disciplines and peer-reviewed literature does hold sway in such matters. Abecedare 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are discussing a number of seperate topics and it is getting a little bit confusing. I am making seperate sub-sections based on what I see. Please correct if I missed something. I strongly believe that this discussion can help us end this ongoing conflict.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

AIM/OIT

Indo-Aryan Migration should be titled Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. So far I have not understood what is objection to adding "theory" to the name.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The related theories are named as Kurgan hypothesis, Anatolian hypothesis, Out of India Theory and Armenian hypothesis. In mainstream scholarship, e.g. Witzel, Bryant, it is also called Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. As per naming convention, name should include Theory.Sbhushan 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See evolution theory.Hornplease 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) the term is capitalized because it is in common use in this form. (b) it is not "a theory", it is a field, comprising various theories. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For Hornplease: Evolution example is not comparable; evolution is supported by lots of physical evidence. AMT is only linguistic theory NOT supported by other specialties like archeology. The first line of article is Indo-Aryan migration is a hypothesis, based on linguistic evidence.....

For dab, please address the question instead of creating confusion. I have not objected to capitalization. And what is the point of field; if it is various theories, name it Indo-Aryan Migration Theories.

I will repeat my question: What is objection to adding theory to the name of article?Sbhushan 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

mainstream scholars

This should be mainstream linguistic scholars. Evidence provided above that archeologist/genetics don't agree with linguistic. To imply all mainstream agree with AIM is misrepresentation.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is discussed in Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian History The History Teacher - Vol. 32, No. 1. (Nov., 1998), pp. 17-32. There has been criticism of linguistic "evidence". And dont give me this Witzelesque bullshit about qualifications. Manian has a PhD in history.Bakaman 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read that article, have you? It's completely tangential to your claim. Hornplease 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we jumping to conclusions? Yourself, dbachmann, and others have tried to assert Frawley, Rajaram, et al. have not been discussed (or have been unanimously rejected) in academic journals. However, this paper does not reject R,R,Kak but notes that they are in sync with views held by Basham and others. In fact it is almost a vindication of many views espoused by Hindu nationalists.Bakaman 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an analysis of a 'discourse', not of the scholarship itself. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming I had not read the paper, is also off-topic. If it was simply an analysis, isn't mainstream Indology supposed to regard the Kak, Frawley, Rajaram as lunatics? The paper does discuss that Rajaran (and Basham in some areas) do not agree with "mainstream" scholarship.Bakaman 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as is the paper you quoted. Move on. Hornplease 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What's really irrelevant are your useless quips in this section. The paper discusses the contradictions of many views, I would suggest you actually read it.Bakaman 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bicker like this. I don't see the point of your mentioning the paper, which is published in a journal on pedagogy, and not history, and which in any case discusses outdated textbooks which use the word 'Invasion', rather than 'migration'. Please take this elsewhere. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Mainstream Archeologist/Genetic don't agree with migration theory. And I am not implying that they agree with OIT either. So mainstream scholar should be refered as mainstream linguitic scholars.Sbhushan 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is the consensus among archaeologists, cite a review article in a prominent journal stating as much and take it to the appropriate page. Otherwise this is pointless. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Bryant 2001 page 231-232, preface by Erdosy in Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995, Witzel's and Shaffer's papers published in same Erdosy 1995. Do you have any mainstream publication for your POV? The archeology point has been accepted by Dab/Rudra on Indo-Aryan Migration page. Even staunch supporters of AMT don't argue about archeology anymore. Using "mainstream scholar" is using weasel words to misrepresent. And we are discussing it here because this issue is common to lots of pages. Sbhushan 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the Erdosy preface is different. Can you provide a quote, please? And I fail to see which pages this affects other than Indo-Aryan migration.. Hornplease 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided you with 4 publications. It says most clearly in Bryant (2001:231)

The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views.

Erdosy (1995)

Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics p.xiii.......Given the debates raging on these issues within as well as between the two disciplines, a guide to the range of contemporary opinion should be particularly valuable for anyone wishing to bridge the disciplinary divide p.xi

How about you provide some references for your POV?Sbhushan 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, doesn't Bryant mean to imply that archaeologists now believe that they cannot answer these questions? In which case, why is it relevant? Hornplease 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Bryant's quote no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins was unclear? So far you have not provided a single reference for your POV. Unless you can provide reference, discussion is pointless. Please read some peer reviewed literature related to this topic.Sbhushan 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan and Priyanath,

Proponents of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (who are academics in relevant fields) reject the idea that the dissemination of Indo-European languages is the result of migrations by Indo-European speaking peoples.

However, they argue that there is no evidence for the migration of Indo-European speakers into Europe.

Proponents of Paleolithic Continuity cite the following:

Lack of archaelogical evidence

the archaeological research of the last few decennia has provided more and more evidence that no large-scale invasion took place in Europe in the Calcholithic

Lack of genetic evidence

80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic

The antiquity of Indo-European place names in Europe

The deepest and most frequent ethnic and linguistic layer, which the study of place names permits us to detect in Catalonia as well as in the Ebro Valley and in Andalusia, is formed by some very ancient Indo-European populations, which created the first network of river and place names, sufficiently dense as to resist successive language changes and to this date

it would be Germanic peoples who would have settled the Scandinavian peninsula after deglaciation, invented techniques -such as tar production- that have exclusively Germanic names, and given exclusively Germanic place names to their newly settled territory (a fact that cannot be reconciled with the invasionist model).

Racism

If one, then, remembers that IE linguistics began after the end of 'catastrophism' and in the context of the Darwinian revolution, when science was faced with the discovery of evolution, and with the fact that 'even' Europe had been inhabited by 'antedeluvian' or 'savage' ancestors, it becomes clear why the believers in the myth of the superior and perfect Arian race would inevitably refuse direct continuity of modern Europeans from the newly-discovered European 'savages'. The Arians became then the mysterious invaders, originating from an unknown and unreachable place, with an unknown and unknowable prehistory, who descended upon Europe as the future world saviours.

These passages are excerpts from the work of Mario Alinei, who was professor of linguistics at the University of Utrecht from 1959 to 1987.

Alinei, Mario (1998), "Towards an Invasionless Model of Indoeuropean Origins: The Continuity Theory", in Pearce, Mark; Tosi, Maurizio (eds.), Papers from the European Association of Archaeologists Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, vol. I: Pre- and Protohistory, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

The passage about Iberia is Alinei excerpting and translating Francisco Villar Liébana, professor of Indo-European linguistics at the University of Salamanca.

And, though he clearly disagrees with it, Alinei acknowledges that the mainstream point of view is the Kurgan hypothesis, whose original proponent Marija Gimbutas and current champion J.P. Mallory were both trained as archaeologists, rather than in the field of linguistics you object so strongly to.

Whatever its flaws, at least the "Indo-Aryan migration" article acknowledges archaeologists' and geneticists' objections.

Archaeologists and geneticists can't find any evidence for "Out of India" either, but this isn't reflected in the article. This needs to be fixed.

It is both misleading and intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on "Indo-Aryan migration" without acknowledging that they cast as much doubt on "Out of India," if not more, considering that scholarship supporting PCT has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

And to argue, as Talageri does, that the evidence supports "Out of India" demonstrates either his ignorance, his laziness, or his agenda of chauvinist propaganda. JFD 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

JFD, I've never argued for Out of India. There is not enough evidence to conclusively support either Out of India or IAM, just as you point out. I agree with you that it's intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on only one and not the other - but that cuts both ways, and exposes intellectual dishonesty by many editors. The IAM article should much more clearly state this—it doesn't. The lack of archaeolgy and genetic evidence should be in the second sentence, rather than buried in a long lead paragraph. 'Lack of evidence' is utterly buried in the respective sections (archaeology and genetics), which waffle back and forth. It's a very effective technique, but then there are some skilled editors protecting that article. ॐ Priyanath talk 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Indo-Aryan migration" article at least acknowledges the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics, even if you believe it should be given greater weight.

The "Out of India" article does not. At all. JFD 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

At all? From Out of India, third sentence: "This theory is deprecated by academic scholars." And the first sentence of the language subsection: "A concern raised by mainstream linguistic scholars is that the Indic PIE languages show extensive influence from contact with Dravidian languages, a claim best developed by Emeneau (1956, 1969,1974)." There's lots more in the article, including extensive cites from Witzel. In fact, there are more cites in Out of India disputing the idea, than in AIM disputing that idea. Both articles could use clearer writing showing that they are hypotheses. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Out of India" article does not explicitly acknowledge the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics.

In fact, it implies that the only objections to "Out of India" are linguistic. JFD 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never edited Out of India (except for one typo in a footnote), and won't be doing serious editing for some time still. I think both articles should be treated equally, but I don't see the IAM folks willing to compromise - so I guess in that regard there is some equality. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that "Indo-Aryan migration" explicitly acknowledges the questions raised by archaeology and genetics whereas "Out of India" does not. JFD 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First point, this sub-section is about the point that IAM and related theories are only linguistic theories and should be presented as such. Based on above discussion, it appears that you agree with this statement. So it should be clearly mentioned that these are linguistic theories and it is "mainstream linguistic scholars". Please confirm that in your own words.

Second point, nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT. If you can find any peer reviewed publication that says archeologists don’t support OIT, please go ahead and add that with proper citations. I have not found any publication yet. Criticism has to follow same WP rules; it has to be from published acceptable sources. Your personal views are irrelevant. The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet. Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle. My personal view is that this whole PIE homeland quest is a waste of time.

Third point, Gimbutas was an archeologist and her Kurgan hypothesis is supported by Linguistic Paleontology (I don’t recall the name of linguistic scholar). Linguistic Paleontology has lost its luster and Kurgan hypothesis is not in favor so much anymore. Mallory (1989) is quoted frequently to show Kurgan is favorite; that is already dated. But this does not account for all the criticism heaped on Kurgan after that point. A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.

Fourth point, each fundamental argument raised by linguistic scholars to support AMT, has been countered by mainstream linguistic scholars themselves. Such shaky theories should not have been used to re-write history. Talageri’s book and Kazanas article in JIES are acceptable as per WP:RS and Out of India theory is acceptable by WP:Fringe. So I am not sure what is the point of your argument. Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?Sbhushan 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT.

The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT.

As illustrated by this excerpt, the OIT article implies—misleadingly—the support of mainstream scholars even if it does not claim it explicitly.

The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet.

There's been plenty of archaelogical work done all over Europe and Asia and no mainstream archaeologist argues that the IE homeland is India.

Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle.

Both the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses were originally proposed and subsequently championed by archaeologists.

Sbhushan, if you're just going to make stuff up that contradicts the known facts, please don't bother. It just wastes both our time.

A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.

Bryant 2001 fails to address the Anatolian hypothesis or other models of IE origins, such as PCT.

Many of the objections to IAM found in Bryant 2001 depend on the 2nd millennium BCE dating of IAM in the Kurgan model.

In other words, the argument "not Kurgan, therefore OIT" is not a valid one.

Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?

What I'm saying is that the OIT article shouldn't misrepresent sources.

It shouldn't, for example, imply that Kennedy supports OIT when he doesn't.

Nor should it cite archaeological and genetic evidence against IAM without acknowledging that the same evidence counters OIT.

JFD 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to copy relevant exchanges of this discussion to Talk:Out of India theory. JFD 05:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misquoting/misrepresenting author’s positions. You also agreed to quote appropriate scholar in the field and now you are quoting a discredited linguist for archeological evidence. Do you have any idea why mainstream linguist reject Alinei arguments? His theory is in fringe of fringe theories and you are quoting him as authority. You have removed properly referenced verifiable content. On top of that, you take my comments out of context and accuse me. As I said to you during arbitration, it didn't seem that you were acting in good faith or making any effort to resolve conflict and you latest actions prove that. It is going to be hard to assume good faith after all this. I am quite busy for about 10 days, after that we will go through your edits line by line and fix them. So go ahead and have your fun, we will sort this out in few days.Sbhushan 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NOW all of a sudden you object to fringe theories and give a damn what mainstream scholars think?

Whatever your objections, Alinei does possess the virtue of having been a university professor. As do other supporters of PCT, in Alinei's case, for 30 years.

The same cannot be said for Elst, nor for Talageri, nor for Kazanas, speaking of "fringe of fringe theories"! You quote them as authorities against university professors in relevant fields. Do you have any idea why mainstream scholars reject Elst's, Talageri's and Kazanas' arguments?

If Alinei is not a reliable source, then Elst, Talageri and Kazanas certainly aren't. JFD 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dating of religious document

This creates conflict on number of pages. We have an option to restrict the conflict to one page and presents summaries on each page with a link regarding controversy. The reason I say controversy is that first, dating of all the document is based on assumption of Indo-Aryan migration which is controversial. Second, even in mainstream scholars, a minority believes the migration happend earlier. Dab provided these minority comments on OIT page. So we can acknowledge that there is a controversy and document it accordingly. But keeping the conflict on all the pages will only escallate this conflict.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Vedas is upfront because of the frequently reiterated claim that the Vedas are the world's oldest 'living' religious documents. Also, there is considerably more scholarly discussion of Vedic dating as a proportion of overall Vedic studies than there is of Qur'anic dating as a proportion of overall Quranic studies. So the comparison isn't useful. Hornplease 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question is: Is it better to restrict conflict to one page vs. conflict on multiple pages?Sbhushan 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of religious document

Religious docuemnts are primarily religious docuements. Linguistic scholars are a minority to topic as they only focus on dating. I don't see the reason to put their views in lead. There should be appropriate section for dating, that also provides link back to the dating article.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. This is supposedly a scholarly encyclopaedia, and needs to reflect the discussion among scholars, not practitioners directly. Hornplease 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that scholars do have the right to present their views at the forefront. However, I agree that regardless of the extent of discussion and speculation scholars have made, dating shouldn't dominate any religious article. Most of the article should be directed towards analysis of the text itself. The Vedas in its current state does a fairly good job at this. Dating isn't mentioned in the lead and appears only in its own section and couple of times when the specific Vedas are discussed. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For Hornplease: Please see WP:RS - The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources. Linguistic scholars are not theologist; their only concern is how Vedic relates to PIE or othere IE languages. Also Witzel is a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University and NOT archeologist or trained in Historical linguistics or Comparative linguistics.

BTW: I agree with DaGizza's comment above as to how Vedas are presented. Dating should appear in appropriate section.Sbhushan 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, according to Witzel's cv, "Indo-European linguistics" and "Indo-Iranian philogogy and linguistics" were part of his PhD concentration, so Witzel did in fact receive training in linguistics, and specifically Indo-European and Indo-Iranian linguistics. JFD 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I said Historical linguistics or Comparative linguistics. If you read Witzel's publication, you will find, he mostly quotes Hans Hock as a specialist in this field. Witzel did study Indology, but his work is mostly focused on Vedic Sanskrit.Sbhushan 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, he is trained in historical and comparative linguistics and has in the past taught comp-ling courses at the small liberal arts school that pays him. Hornplease 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Being trained doesn't make him authority in the field. And the fact that only a small liberal arts school was willling to pay him says a lot about lack of authority. The point I am making is that Witzel can be quoted for Sanskrit, but NOT as an archologist or historical linguist.Sbhushan 12:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "small liberal arts school" to which Hornplease refers is Harvard University, where Witzel has held the Wales Professorship of Sanskrit for 20 years.

The reference to a "small liberal arts school" was an ironic joke on the part of Hornplease.

And if being a tenured professor at Harvard is an insufficient academic credential, what makes Talageri and Kazanas such authorities?

JFD 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Witzel can be considered authority on Sanskrit. Same way Witzel can quote Hock or Meadow to support his arguments, Talageri and Kazanas can quote same mainstream scholars Hock, Johanna Nichols and also Witzel himself to support their arguments. As I explained to you on OIT talk page, Talageri or Kazanas don't make claims to be linguist. But you don't need a degree from Harvard to read English. This Witzel discussion is not going anywhere, so let us stop this one. I will object where I see him being quoted out of context.

Talageri and Kazanas are not, nor can they be considered, academic authorities.

And, as I explained to you on the OIT talk page, Talageri quotes Witzel out of context.

JFD 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this section is religious authority. Being a Sanskrit professor doesn't make anyone authority on theology..Sbhushan 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just remember that, by the same token, being a theologian doesn't make someone a historian. JFD 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, theologians are not historian. Question is how much weight should be given to theological discussion and date discussion in religious documents.Sbhushan 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the theological interpretation of a religious document, weight should be given to theologians.

When it comes to the history of a document—including its date—weight should be given to academics.

JFD 18:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Again agree with your comments, appropriate source in each section. Question: How much of article should be about theology vs dating?Sbhushan 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==Thus speak Prof Witzel

He is anti-India. Read this very well documented article with lot of supporting documents http://www.vigilonline.com/downloads/Dossier%20on%20Witzel.doc

Niranjan 2-Jul-07

Akhilleus, an admin is blocking all edits showing witzel in less than a positive light despite the fact that the references are from WP:RS sources and comply with WP:BLP policy. Please join in on the discussion on the Witzel Talk Page. [4] Kkm5848 06:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of founders of world religions#Hinduism

An interesting discussion that others may like to get involved in. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New look Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism

The old design is here. There are still vital sections missing in the transformed version, which will soon be added. In the past, the inefficient organisation and collaboration of the Hinduism project had let many reasonably-written articles dissolve into garble, which was what prompted me for change. We have never reached our potential with the quantity and quality of writers we contain. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva terrorism

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva terrorism. deeptrivia (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC - Out of India Theory - Urheimat

Please see an RfC Talk:Out_of_India_theory#Request_for_Comment:_Gandhara_as_homeland.Sbhushan 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Khatri

There is an ongoing edit-war on this page for weeks/months between anon. IPs on whether Khatris are Kshatriyas or not. Can someone knowledgeable please settle this dispute, add some references or at least semi-protect the page ? Thanks. Abecedare 11:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought

Here is an interesting article that addresses the very issues at the heart of so much disagreement (see discussion above) on Hinduism related wikipedia pages:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070629&fname=aditibannerjee&sid=1

Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, if you want to change the representation of Hinduism in academia, Wikipedia is absolutely, unequivocally, and emphatically NOT the place to fight that battle.

For better or for worse, Wikipedia MUST reflect academia. JFD 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not trying to do anything JFD. I merely found an interesting article that sheds some light on the disputes here. Wikipedia reflects the broader culture, and I don't think it's inappropriate to bring relevant non-Wikipedia cultural discussions here to the Hinduism-related topics notice board. Food, thought, that's all. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is indicative of the sustained campaign being organised by radical activists to mainstream non-scholarly work through 'alternative' methods in order to gain political traction. If Wikipedia doesn't resist this gaming of the system - the wikibombing of the subsidised propaganda press Voice of India is one example - then the India-related pages will be nothing but an unreadable, unreliable cesspool, something like the decline of the Times of India. Hornplease 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the article as a change agent for Wikipedia, and that wasn't my intention in posting it here. Rather, it gave me an aha moment of understanding the underlying cause of the unending conflict between certain editors of Hinduism related articles. So don't worry, JFD and HP, it won't affect how I edit :-). It did give me more compassion for, and understanding of both sides, and I think it might do the same for others. As far as it expressing "radical" views, <tongueincheek>except for the author using Michael Witzel as a reliable source to support her premise</tongueincheek>, it really is a reasonable and well articulated explanation for the astoundingly different views of Hinduism in the world, and on Wikipedia. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And another, this one peer-reviewed, that many people may not have seen (pdf warning): [5]. "It is too easy merely to say this group is just another bunch of Hindu nationalists clinging to the chimera of Hindu unity as the defining feature

of Indian civilisation. Certainly they share some of the beliefs of their VHP colleagues. But I suspect the experience of several of them as NRIs working in America must have had an impression on their resolve to begin a new school of Indian history. Rajaram indicates this when he stresses the burgeoning financial power of the NRIs and by implication their role as guardians of a particular ethos of Hindu civilisation." and "In the writings of the Indo-American historians we do find the kind of communal allusions that simmer constantly beneath the surface waiting to find an explosion point. Yet the writings of these people are too inaccessible to be other than a backdrop for those who would seek to stir the communal pot. There is no originality in the underlying themes of what we find in these 'histories'. The view that India has always been the home of a civilisation of people speaking Sanskrit is an old one—going back to the idea of Aryavarta found in the late Vedas. But an absence of originality is hardly the point. It is the resurfacing of old, if not traditional, ideas that is significant here and the very obvious opponents against whom they are being directed." Fun stuff. Hornplease 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You should consider reading the article I posted, hornplease. It wasn't at all about revising history. As I said above, it's a reasonable and well articulated explanation for the astoundingly different views of Hinduism in the world, and on Wikipedia. My purpose for posting it was that it might give editors on both sides a deeper understanding of some of the edit conflicts here. The article is about western academics, who are reliable sources, using psychoanalysis and bias to 'prove' things that any Hindu knows to be absurd, such as:

"Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes."—Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN 0-19-505742-2. (a 'RS' author freely referenced at Ganesha)

"He [Ganesa] remains celibate so as not to compete erotically with his father (Shiva), a notorious womaniser, either incestuously for his mother or for any other woman for that matter."—Courtright

"Both in his behavior and iconographic form Ganesa resembles in some aspects, the figure of the eunuch… Ganesha is like a eunuch guarding the women of the harem."—Courtright

"Holi, the spring carnival, when members of all castes mingle and let down their hair, sprinkling one another with cascades of red powder and liquid, symbolic of the blood that was probably used in past centuries."—Wendy Doniger

Read the Article

'Fun Stuff', you think? Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I remember the Doniger Holi quote. It always sounded like something out of Sholay to me. "Today I shall play Holi with your blood", etc. Hornplease 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that really explains alot..... ॐ Priyanath talk 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I clearly have nothing to do, I ran a small search. I clearly picked this up from somewhere. Well, Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna, the Bhagat Singh poem, uses "Khoon se khelenge holi gar vatan muskhil mein hai", which is familiar to some from Rang de Basanti. Khoon ki Holi was a 1981 movie. The Sholay reference probably came from having heard the phrase used by someone appropriately Gabbar-esque: Pappu Yadav, perhaps [6]. Apparently, in Rajasthan, a rather strange and painful-sounding custom is observed[7] and a recipient of an Indian bravery award apparently died with the exact same phrase on his lips [8]. Sorry,awfully off-topic, but at least my first response is partly explained...Hornplease 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is awfully off-topic. Using holi to embellish an epithet is not the source of Doniger's strangeness. It was based on her poor understanding of sanskrit, which was scathingly ridiculed by Witzel. And I have a feeling that public stoning is not a regular practice in Rajasthan during Holi, though I'm willing to be corrected by any Rajasthanis here who have practiced that. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposition that Holi emulates a literal bloodbath is an exceptional claim, not unlike Bakaman's backdating of the Rigveda to 4000 BCE.

However, the proponent of the former holds doctorates in Sanskrit and Indian studies from Harvard and Oxford Universities, and is the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago as well as a member of its Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations. As a present-day member of the relevant academic community, she is a reliable source on the subject.

By contrast, in support of a 4000 BCE date for the Rigveda, Bakaman cites one source from 1895[9] and his other is an article in a journal of education by a Ph.D of Comparative Development Studies.[10] In other words, not reliable sources.

The reliability of a source can be judged by the willingness of scholarly presses and peer-reviewed journals in a relevant academic specialty to publish it, and the acceptance of a viewpoint by its representation in reliable sources. Just because not all of her ideas meet with her colleagues' acceptance does not necessarily mean that Doniger is any less of a reliable source. JFD 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is not a subject relegated to perverts and linguists in academia. Any peer-reviewed journal suffices, as the religion can encompass many academic disciplines.Bakaman 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views"

In other words, No, Bakaman, a journal of education does not suffice as a reliable source for the dating of the Rigveda. JFD 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Education journals may not be considered reliable sources for insights into historical dating. Hornplease 22:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Doniger is a 'reliable source' by the definition used by Wikipedia. But she is anything but a 'reliable source' using the real world definition of the term. Witzel's scathing ridicule of Doniger's understanding of Sanskrit is well known, along with her utterly absurd writings about Hinduism. Thus the strange disconnect that sometimes happens between academia and reality on Wikipedia. That article I linked explains much about certain editors and articles here. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd need to see Witzel's criticisms of Doniger in his own words before accepting Banerjee's characterization of them, or yours. JFD 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Witzel published his criticism on a website - quoted excerpts are easily available through Googling. Certainly not 'reliable sources' by WP and your definition, so there's no point in posting them here, but they are clearly reliable using the real world definition. But anyone who has lived and experienced Hinduism, and then read Doniger, understands the extreme disconnect between certain academics and reality. Those of us who live the bulk of our lives off-Wiki and on-realworld don't need Witzel (one 'reliable source') to discredit the teachings of Doniger (another 'reliable source'). I well understand that encyclopedias throughout history have promoted racial and religious prejudices that were supported by the 'reliable sources' of their time. Thus I accept what goes on here, and why I appreciated the linked article's explanation. Change needs to happen in academia before it will be accepted by an encyclopedia, and by those editors who put a religious level of faith in 'reliable sources'. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes both that and drinking cow piss are important theological considerations.Bakaman 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that truly is off-topic, and a complete non-sequitur. Hornplease 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at general articles

There is a need to focus on general articles so that they have wider non-European content. As an example, the article on Just War, starts with "The doctrine of the "just war" has its foundations in ancient Greek society and was first developed in the Christian tradition by Augustine in Civitas Dei, ..." Considering how the Mahabharata and especially the Bhagavadgita talk volumes on this subject, this article could have a more global perspective. It is my consistent observation that India-related content is poorly integrated with rest of wikipedia. Just wanted to share this with everyone. deeptrivia (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have observed this too. On Hinduism/India-only articles, the content isn't that bad but on general religious/philosophical topics where Hinduism will only take a section, that section is often missing or not up to the standard of other, namely Abrahamic religions. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Can some editor take the initiative and draw up a list of some such articles in a subpage ? I myself can think of Idolatry, Sin, Heaven as articles where the Hindu view is not well-written or referenced and usually isolated to a section. By the way, I think this is a matter of natural systemic bias, and not some anti-Hindu conspiracy. :-) Abecedare 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy and Prayer are another two to add to the list. Gouranga(UK) 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that reliable sources are non-negotiable, whether dealing with articles that are India-only or general. Far-fetched claims and ethnocentric skewing have been seen in the general civilization articles. JFD 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! Are you sure that message was meant for one of us? Deeptrivia, Abecedare, I and others like Buddhipriya and GourangaUK have in fact protected Hinduism articles from an influx of devotee, unacademic perspectives. Notable devotees POV have a right to be mentioned as long as the article clearly differentiates what the scholars (Western or Indian) say and what the Hindus say. I for some reason believe that message wasn't intended for us. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't. JFD 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the articles mentioned above on Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board/Articles needing global perspective. If this is not the right place/name, please move/rename it. Also, it would be good to put the link at a prominent place for easy access, and so that more people know about it. deeptrivia (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Hinduism up for a deletion!

<_<...--D-Boy 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the deletion is mentioned on the talk page here Talk:Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Anybody who wishes to discuss the deletion to welcome to join. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic Religions

I'm deeply worried about the references for the title phrase. Other than Frawley and a single book by Michael York - called "Paganism", if you please - there are no references for the phrase itself. Google books throws up three other results[11], one ofwhich is about political uses of religion, and one is straight from WP. Scholar's sole unique link [12] is to a Hindu Students Council website. Are we promoting a politically-charged neologism? Hornplease 10:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I went back and read the sole mention of the phrase 'Dharmic religions' in the RS on Google books. It states that the phrase is used as a political ploy to indicate solidarity -and indeed, identity- between non-Semitic religions on the subcontinent by the VHP. I then looked at the talkpage of the article, which gave rise to further concern when viewed in that light. I need some more input on this soon, please. Hornplease 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MSN Encarta does say

Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition.

Doldrums 09:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

6 links for "Dharmic tradition" on Scholar (1 on JSTOR), 18 on books, most of which talk about Gandhi, and only 4 of which use the phrase in the sense in which Encarta does.

No results on Lexis, less than 10 results for DR on Google News Archive from reliable sources. The throwaway Encarta reference is insufficient for an entire article title. Meanwhile, the article itself is merely a collection of stubs about Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, with little or no real analysis. The Buddhism and Hinduism article is better, but here, again, there isn't any organic analysis. This is a neologism. I am now convinced. What can be done to excise it while saving the contents of the article? What is the actual, appropriate term? Hornplease 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally am not familiar with use of the phrase "Dharmic religions" specifically, and it does not appear in the indexes of several standard overview books where it perhaps would have been found had it been in widepread use. Failure to appear in an index or glossary of a particular work is not proof that the term is not used at all, but its absence from a sampling of well-known works suggests to me that it is not widely used. I did not find it in the indexes of:

• Kulki and Rothermund, A History of India
• Keay, India
• Thapar, Early India
• Basham, The Wonder That Was India
• Zimmer, Philosophies of India
• Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy
• Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy
• Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism
• Conze, Buddhist Thought In India

Perhaps the term is in one of those books but not indexed, I really cannot say. The burden of proof for currency of the term should rest upon those who feel it should be used. Buddhipriya 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since those, with one or two exceptions, are mostly indexed in Google Books, I think it is the case that they do not contain the term. Hornplease 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that there isn't a notable equivalent for Abrahamic for religions that originated in India? Likewise can someone check whether Taoic religion (Refers to East Asian religions like Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto) has notable usage among scholars. And is there any other term that scholars might classify Hinduism, Buddhism et al because of their similarities, such as Indian religions? The use of "Dharmic" is spread throughout Wikipedia on many pages. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

can someone check whether Taoic religion (Refers to East Asian religions like Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto) has notable usage among scholars?

No, it doesn't. JFD 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Abrahamic Religion itself has 200 counts on Google Books, which isn't a lot compared to "Semitic religion", a phrase with which I am familiar, which receives 800 or so; used in the sense in which WP uses Abrahamic, not in the sense of the redirect Semitic religion. Dear, dear. Hornplease 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no updates on this, and I've done a little more research. I think I will have to start removing references to DR, and replacing them with another phrase - I think "religions of Indian origin" should cover it nicely. Any ideas? Hornplease 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking the cue from your earlier comment on the common understanding of "Semitic", how about "Indic religions"? (Though, so as not to encourage yet another neologism on WP, the cumbersome phrasing of "religions of Indian origin" could be the wiser choice.) rudra 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A major overhaul would be needed in the enitre field of Comparative religion on Wikipedia. A good place to start is to send Dharmic religion and Taoic religion to AFD. In a sense, these classifications are almost hoaxes judging from the evidence provided above. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD could be a good way to expose the neologism aspect and get good feedback on better titles for a renaming (assuming material worthy of salvage). Even "Abrahamic" seems brand new (references to two obscure essays in 1998 and 2001? Wow, anything for WP:RS!) "Semitic Monotheism" may have a better pedigree. rudra 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support AFD for Dharmic Religions. I am not sure if any replacement term has clear critical mass, and I would avoid replacing one neologism for another. When I need to discuss this idea I sometimes just refer to the descriptive idea of "religions that originated in India" or some similar phrase, because the eventual evolution of doctrine in Buddhism includes elements that are not Indic in origin. Zen Buddhism, for example is not clearly described by calling it an Indic Religion. Buddhipriya 06:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To rudra, Abrahamic does have some usage though not enough, I agree. From the Wikipedia article, it appears that it was an Islamic term used to group the three religions together. I'm not sure how valid that is however. If "Semitic religion" is more commonly used, I suppose redirecting Abrahamic to Semitic would suffice. To Buddhipriya, it is true that not all elements of "Dharmic religions" originated in India but the religions themselves originated from India. Perhaps it is better to say "religions founded in India." Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A question? Wouldnt the phrase "Religions of Indian origin" or "Indian religions" include the Ahmadiyya and Sufi sects of Islam and the Nasrani christians.--nids(♂) 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those remain sects of religions with their origins outside India. Hornplease 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to create a list of religions originating in the Indian subcontinent. Or may be the category:religions originating in the Indian subcontinent would suffice. Andries 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A related discussion at Talk:Dharmic religion#Please do not remove request for citations. We might want to centralize this.Hornplease 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

This is quite interesting... No one posted a message at that article's talk page to ask involved editors of their opinions about this until today, one week after posting here. I am puzzled about the reasons... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a general noticeboard for those involved in editing articles related to Hinduism. It is not particularly surprising, as it is assumed that those reading this board is a superset of those reading that talkpage. I personally have not read that talkpage recently; please note that this discussion started over a month ago. I trust your puzzlement is at an end.Hornplease 04:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It is even more puzzling. In any case, I invite you to discuss in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. It would be wonderful if you could explain the source of your puzzlement. In any case, I think that we seem to have come to a conclusion here that the phrase is a neologism. I look forward to people's suggestions on a suitably neutral alternative. Hornplease 04:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy. With all due respect to Wikiprojects such as this one, editors expect concerns to be raised on articles' talk pages. In particular if there are serious concerns about an article's viability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My original concern, as a read-through of this section would show, was for the use of the phrase in other articles. It only subsequently emerged that the article as a whole might be unviable. In any case, I do not believe that all articles sent to AfD are done so with due warning on the talkpage. Thank you for attempting to clarify your puzzlement. I trust we can move on to a search for solutions now? If you do you have any further remarks on my conduct, perhaps my talkpage is the ideal location; I will now archive this section of the discussion as a digression.Hornplease 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the term is overused in Wikipedia. See Talk:Taoic_religion#Dharmic_religion_is_an_unsual_term. Andries 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

To return to the issue: is there an alternative designation we can find? In the absence of one, I think we should always use a neutral phrase. Hornplease 04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi makes an excellent point, that prior to actually doing an AfD, the issue could be discussed on the talk page to get the widest range of views prior to the action. I assumed that proper processes would be used for the article itself. The purpose of this noticeboard is to try to build agreement on topics that may impact multiple articles, or to get a more broad opinion, and discussion of the matter here has been entirely appropriate for those purposes. Regarding an alternate phrase that will not itself create a new neologism, I like Gizza's "religions founded in India" best so far of the options given here. Buddhipriya 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Din-i-Ilahi is a religion founded in India. But it is definitely not a Dharmic religion.nids(♂) 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Never more than 19 adherents, according to the linked article. Also, a syncretic religion, incorporating elements of Hinduism and Islam; scholars say the same about Sikhism. Similarly, scholars of the early Brahmo movement will indicate it incorporates elements of Hinduism and Protestant Christianity. Hornplease 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Point is that the phrase religions founded in India cannot replace Dharmic religions. You need to find a better term or phrase in case you want to move that article. Or you can Afd it o'course.nids(♂) 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Major religions founded in India? I really don't think Din-i-Ilahi is sufficient to suggest an exception, especially as it is not really an exception to any sort of grouping that would include Sikhism. Hornplease 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharmic religion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2#Category:Dharmic_religions. Andries 17:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC) See Talk:Human#Dharmic_religions. This thread here is my preferred place for a centralized discussion about use of the phrase throughout Wikipedia.Andries 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh, I came here due to an RFC, you are now engaging in the act of WP:FORUMSHOPING.Balloonman 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I closed the AFD and CFD due to WP:FORUMSHOP---the effort to have mutiple discussions with outside sources is a clear attempt to find a favorable audience. As RFC is the most diplomatic of the three options, I left it open. Please feel free to contribute HEREBalloonman 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries says: "discussion about a phrase". Usage of phrase all over WP≠notability of article. Also forumshopping is a strange accusation to make after he has indicated a preference for this location as a centralised discussion. Hornplease 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Andries' (innocent) "mistake" seems to have been posting to the RfC board in an effort to bring more comments to a centralized location, where the discussion has in fact been about an AfD. The way I read WP:FORUMSHOP, the problem is when someone tries to reopen an issue elsewhere; reading it instead to mean a blanket ban on canvassing for opinion on a currently open issue seems quite absurd. Whatever. Never mind bad faith, POV-pushing or wiki-lawyering, none of which have been in much evidence so far. That's a relief, except now we have busybody adminning in the mix too. What a clusterf*ck. rudra 05:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reopened the AFD based upon comments above... but I left the CFD closed as it should include the category. Get people who are independent and interested in the discussion to weigh in on the Category. Not people who have no interest in the subject whatsoever.Balloonman 07:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All words are politically charged--particularly in contexts like these. If it is true that "Dharmic religions" is "a political ploy to indicate solidarity," then to not use these words (or the conceptual category) is to take a stand against this movement for solidarity. Assuming we could find an alternative vocabulary which doesn't tie these religions together, there would be no objective way of deciding which vocabulary is more accurate: they are just different ways of breaking the world up into categories. There is no unbiased or neutral way of dealing with these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.241.182 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Upanishads

There is Criticism section of the Upanishads wiki page citing Lala Hardayal and Ambedkar, none of whom are scholars of Hinduism or Upanishads. I strongly feel that criticism of the upanishads or any religious scriptures pertained to those by Scholars rather than political activists with their agenda or theme. This is more or less quoting George Bush on Islam which makes no sense. This needs to be changed. But Criticism from Scholars on religious scriptures like Bible, Upanishads are excellent. Your viewpoints on this will be appreciated.

• Ambedkar's comments can be kept, because he was a known critic of Hinduism (thats why he famously converted to Buddhism). But I don't think Lala Hardayal's comments are needed because they appear to more of a passing remark.

Overall I think Marxist-leaning comments or comments from western scholarship must must be watched out for. They usually have a Hindu-bashing slant.Indian_Air_Force

Hindu philosophy project notice

The "banner" for the Hindu philosophy workgroup seems to contain the same image as the Hinduism banner itself. This really doesn't look good on the talk page, and gives the definite impression of duplication and/or redundancy. Is there any way to replace the image in either template so that the templates don't look quite so identical? John Carter 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need a separate banner for each workgroup ? IMO it would be better to simply have the relevant workgroups listed as line entries within the Hinduism banner - just as the India project does (see for example the project banner at Talk:Maharashtra). Will need someone with template coding skills to implement this though. Abecedare 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't have any objections to it myself. It seems that at some point in the past the templates for what are now the various subprojects got merged into one. I've been trying to "retag" the mythology articles, but noticed that what used to be the "WikiProject Vedanta" articles now get a template with the "aum" symbol already used on the Hinduism banner. I do think having the "drop-down" tabs like those used by the Australia project, Military history project, and the like would work just as well though. John Carter 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shiva nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

Any parties interested in seeing this article receive such attention and working to help improve it should indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible "deactivation" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Mythology

As can be seen on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology page, there is a lot of disagreement as to what is the proper usage of the word "mythology", and whether use of that word can be seen as being potentially problematic. That same question could be raised about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Mythology group. Considering that the content with which that group operates is pretty much entirely within the scope of the parent Hinduism project, and that the number of articles (probably no more than 400) that that group deals with isn't so overwhelmingly large that it inherently needs a separate project/task force, I was wondering whether the rest of you think it might be a good idea to perhaps remove the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Mythology page altogether, and simply let the parent project, which already deals with those articles, take on responsibility for them. Doing so would lose whatever focused efforts the current group gives, but would also eliminate the possible negative reaction to the word "mythology". I know that I really have no particular standing in this community, but just wanted the question to be raised. Thanks for your attention. John Carter 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindu (ethnic group)??

I'm not sure this is the best place to raise this issue, but the newly created article is such an x/y that I can't think of any place better. Is this really a valid ethnicity, at least different from, or beyond, what's already covered at Hindu, Hinduism, and Hindi? I mean the article says "In India, a Hindu is one who follows Hinduism as their religion and speaks the Hindi language." Even if I moved to India, learned to speak Hindi, and converted to Hinduism, I can't imagine anybody considering my WASPy, honky self to be an 'enthic Hindu'. Sohelpme 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is not an ethnicity but a religion; however I think the reason for this is that until recently there was an extremely small, if any, (though now increasing, due to societies such as ISKCON) number of practicing Hindus who were not of Indian descent. Not all 'ethnic' Hindus speak Hindi everyday as far as I know. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bhakthi movement - various facets

I have read in several references that the Bhakthi movement does not have any link with the Vedic ot Upanishadic literature and that it started more as an effort to give some sort of entry or participative feeling to the "Sudras" who were completely forbidden from the Vedic Hindu religion. As a consequence the Bhakthi movement called to question many of the caste distinctions and Vedic religious practices.

With changing times newer philosophical viewpoints were put forward by several "Acharyas". Whenever they found that the learned Brahmanic circles could not be made to accept their own viewpoint easily, they resorted to the "Bhakthi marga" to publicise and get followers. In course of time, the effects of other religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Sufism etc., also played their part in changing the hues of the Bhakthi movement within Hindu religion to what it is today.

In the present era, Bhakthi gets more and more followers because it frees one from the time-honoured religious practices ordined for each caste; it also gives a certain immunity to people from "fear fo god" - a good example is Ajamila's story in which a brahmin who led a very sinful life, and was very attached to his youngest son, got "Moksha" merely because he happened to call his favourite son at his final moment and 10,000 years era within Kali yugathat happened to be the name of Lord Vishnu!

yet another visible result of the growing popularity of the Bhakthi movement is the emergence of so many "living Gods" and Gurus since, without a Guru one is not eligible for Moksha, under the tenets of the movement, it seems.

I suggest that the wikipedia article should reflect all aspects of the Bhakthi movement and should not stop merely by stating what the votaries of Bhakthi cults would like to say about it.

Ajnaathan 08:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see the '10,000 years era within Kali yuga' in Kali Yuga

Devanagari script for Shanti Mantra Article

somebody asked in talk page of shanti mantra article "I would really appreciate it if someone could post these mantras in Devanagari also. It is very hard to read these mantras when they are written in english.

I live in the US and if I find it difficult to read these when written in english, then many others might be having trouble.

Thank you." can anybody do it? I'm not able to write in devanagari in my browser.

Lokesh 2000 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started posting these verses in Sanskrit.--Sankarrukku 17:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need the slokas???

A debate has been raging on Sritattvanidhi whether slokas should be included in the article. To resolve the issue and make it a MOS, i approach you. I have moved the discussion to this page as i think this question will arise in other Hinduism related articles for e.g. Navagraha(where a sloka was deleted recently by another editor) , Bhairav(where a new sloka is added and now deleted and moved to talk page) and even the discussion above deals with it. I would you to express your opinion to come to a Consensus should shlokas be inclued in Hinduism articles.--Redtigerxyz 11:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please give your suggestions on issues:

1. Should slokas be included?
2. if yes, should they be in Devanagari or an Indian script OR in English IAST OR both ?
3. Should they be written in Devanagari or an Indian script OR in English IAST also, if the English translation is given.
4. How many maximum slokas should be included?
5. If any reference to the content of sloka is made(for e.g. if Maha Ganapati's characteristics are discussed in a particular verse of Sritattvanidhi), should the verse be quoted?

Please go through editors' comments on Sritattvanidhi talk page. Thank you--Redtigerxyz 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

I have added my comments to Talk:Sritattvanidhi#Notes. Abecedare 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus answer from Lisasmall: yes, include, on a subpage. I misunderstood and initially posted this suggestion in Talk:Sritattvanidhi; here's the gist of it. (Unfortunately, I can't move what I said at that location here because people have already built a conversation on it which would be orphaned if my original note there were moved). What I said was, I'd recently edited Bhairava and removed a lengthy passage that was all in Sanskrit (a transliteration, I assume), all in capital letters, and put an explanation on Talk:Bhairava as follows: I did a general punctuation, spelling, etc. cleanup this morning. I moved this from the article to here. As it is entirely in Sanskrit with no English translation, it adds nothing for most Wikipedia users. I put the text I'd removed from the article page into the talk page in a box to make it easy to see what I'd done.

I think a sub-page off of the main deity article for lengthy or multiple slokas with their transliterations/English translations is the best way to handle these situations. The Devanagari or an Indian script would be nice to have for shorter slokas, but might make even the subpage unwieldy for a lengthy one. Certainly every article that contains a sloka (or excerpt from a sloka) should have at least a half-sentence explaining what a sloka is, or providing a wikilink to same. The Bhairava article didn't, and I had no idea what I was looking at until Redtigerxyz was kind enough to leave me a note on my talk page.

I think in Wiki, any religious article should assume the reader is not of that religion, and provide enough explanation in the text so that even a complete ignoramus such as myself can follow along. Detailed prayers, hymns, or anthems may be of keen interest to some readers, but unless they're somehow central to the article itself should be on italicized see also sub-pages to keep the main article straightforward and short enough for a novice to get through without getting bogged down. Borrowing examples from another faith, I'd say it's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve as a type of catechism book, so even the sub-page should not contain every known relevant sloka. A few examples should with a few words of context should suffice, such as: "The 'Our Father' is the most common prayer in Christianity, based on the Sermon on the Mount. This is the version usually said by Protestants. The variation said by Catholics is in brackets." Do we need a hard number, just a suggestion of a range, i.e., that three (if long) to five (if short) slokas are enough?

If an English translation is really key to the main article text and it is very short, I'd say include it with a see also link in the text, as in see also (name of subpage) for full text, translation, and transliteration of this sloka. I don't think that lapsing into Sanskrit in the middle of a page of the English Wikipedia is any more helpful than lapsing into Basque or French would be. -- Lisasmall | Talk 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Swastika FAR listing

Swastika has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kicking222 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering is engaged in revert wars related to unsourced content and WP:OR on multiple articles related to Hinduism. Because I try to follow a self-imposed one-revert rule, I am at a disadvantage when dealing with editors who immediately revert reversions rather than engage in dialog on the matter. I request that other members of the Hinduism project look into this situation. Because of the revert warring, I will desist from working on these contested content problems after making one attempt per article. I am placing this note here because in the recommended escalation process for conflict resolution on Wikipedia, involving third parties is recommended, and the other editor has agreed that this may be useful. Thus I feel that I am acting in accord with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and in accord with the stated agreement of the other editor: [13]. Those who know my editing will know that I generally prefer content editing to this type of conflict resolution, but I feel unable to deal with this situation on my own, and thus am requesting independent comment. I also invite constructive criticism of my own approach, so I may learn how to deal with these situations more effectively. Buddhipriya 05:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The spaciousness of accommodation is elementary. I politely requested grace (of time and space) which BP has chosen to disregard. Please appreciate the requirement of the resource of kshetra or temenos within which to work. BP's edits and reversions in relation to my input are draconian and dogmatic and I feel bullied. This is not name calling: it is calling a spade a spade: a lotus by any other name? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For the uninitiated:

Buddhipriya: If I didn't appreciate and respect your considerable hard work and your flawless scholarly style I would dismiss you as the personification of condescension. Your usage of "told"...smacks of schoolmarmism and arrogance. Yet again I consider what you wrote...as largely untrue and unfounded but appreciate the extension of mediation and involvement of a third party to resolve this ongoing stonewall stalemate. I would be more than happy to enter into dialogue with you and even work with you on articles to establish common ground. Buddhipriya, what I edit is my life's study. My editing is not vain folly as you infer. I don't always remember the exact source that I have secured information from but I have read thousands of scholarly spiritual works, have received empowerments and initiations from a number of teachers throughout my life and practice a synthesis of traditions. Spirituality is also key and primary to my lived experience and worldview. When I remember and re-access sources and references I include this information on articles directly; which is evidenced by my editorial history. Compared with you, I might not be a deft hand with Wikipedia policies and procedures, but it is my considered opinion that your usage and knowledge of said policies and precedures as a means of excluding and marginalising that which you do not understand and fear from being represented in articles is a contravention of the intention of inclusion which is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia.

Namaste in agape

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources, follow guidelines and policies, and don't insert info which you can't reference. Your personal spirituality is not a reason to ignore the basics of Wikipedia or disparage other editors motives. 24.4.253.249 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Venkatesa Battar

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Venkatesa Battar is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rishi Kaundinya appearing in Buddhism in Wikipedia

I would like to draw your attention to the page where you search for "Kaundinya" and you are taken to the page which describes Buddhism. I would also like to draw your attention that "Rishi Kaundinya" was a Hindu sage and his name also does not appear in the list of Gotras. Request you to kindly add it in.

History of Vegetarianism in India

Sub section in new article: History_of_vegetarianism#India.

Is there anyone with a detailed knowledge of this area that would like to become involved in editing the article? It involves Hinduism, but obviously also Buddhism and Jainism also, and ideally what is written in future will show a balanced perspective. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalism Article

Someone has added the following to the Fundamentalism article:

Some sects of hinduism, especially monotheistic ones, such as Sri Vaishnavas, Hare Krishnas etc, are considered as fundamentalist as they interpret the purana scriptures litterally, rather than symbolically, like other hindu sects do.

I have marked this with a "fact" tag, as I am not sure if this is correct in many ways:

• Are monotheistic sects more likely to interpret the scriptures literally?
• To what extend to Sri Vaishnavas and Hare Krishnas do this?
• Are these groups considered as fundamentalist by a significant number of people? If so by whom?
• Does "other Hindu sects" mean most Hindu sects?

To my view this entry needs tidying up and clarifying with citations or deleting -- Q Chris 10:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is a more accurate description, but the fundamental tag is somewhat subjective. Better not to generalise with 'Hindu sects':

While many schools like Smartism and Advaitism encourage interpretation of the Vedas philosophically and metaphorically and not too literally, Vaishnavism stresses the literal meaning (mukhya vṛitti) as primary and indirect meaning (gauṇa vṛitti) as secondary: sākṣhād upadesas tu shrutih - "The instructions of the shruti-shāstra should be accepted literally, without fanciful or allegorical interpretations." (Jiva Goswami, Kṛiṣhna Sandarbha 29.26-27).

Gouranga(UK) 11:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What both have of you have said as you may notice isn't related to fundamentalism in any way. I also observed that Chris was referring to the Puranas and Gouranga to the Vedas. As for the literal metaphorical dilemma, common sense tells you that a particular sect will interpret its own scriptures at a more literal level but will interpret other texts at a more metaphorical level. Eg. Followers of Advaita will the stress the literal meaning Adi Shankara's commentaries but may treat Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's texts metaphorically. The opposite is the case for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that does make sense. -- Q Chris 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I would need to have a more precise definition of what you mean by "fundamentalism" before I would venture a reply to the question. There are certainly sects that believe exclusively in some set of views to the rejection of all others. There may be specific behavioral factors included in the definition of fundamentalism that would need to be defined. Buddhipriya 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article request: Shivasena

Someone asked me my opinion about Shivasena. All I know about them is that they made threats to damage internet cafes in protest against orkut's anti-hinduism groups. I don't know if this is typical of the group or some extremists, or what their policies and views are. I told the person wo asked me that I didn't know and tried to look up more info on wikipedia, but there is no article. Please could someone who knows crate one! -- Q Chris 11:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an article. The proper spelling is Shivsena.--Redtigerxyz 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That explains it. -- Q Chris 13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Note: the entire above section has been copied from somewhere else.

I have no idea what's going on with this guy. I've just told him about forum spamming, and yet he leaves multiple copies on my talkpage, a couple of article talkpages, his own talkpage and now this noticeboard and the India noticeboard. Its impossible.

In any case, he seems to have moved on from being an SPA at Karan Singh and Hari Singh as well as other articles related to the royal house of Kashmir and Mayo College (and earlier, about some Indian wildlife mailing list) to vaguely accusing me of covering up atrocities of one sort or another. I seem to have irritated him by reverting large amounts of fanglish on the Karan Singh page. SOmeone else please handle the guy, since he thinks I'm the devil. Hornplease 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Please track Hornplease, among many other continuously he has now censored Anti-Hindu and put up Destruction of Idol Temples for deletion in 5 days time.

Atulsnischal 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been systematically deleting mass text from related wikipedia articles

and additionally he has continuously taken to stalking me WP:STALKING, please warn him too for both above and specially censoring wikipedia with his biased and bogus policy arguments for doing so

Reported user here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks Atulsnischal 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism

I'd like to get some more eyes and brains involved in this article- there are a number of problems with it regarding accurately depicting the variety of perspectives on the relationship between Buddhism & and Hinduism, as well as a recent dispute over how to incorporate views of Buddhism that emphasize its relationship to the Hindu tradition. Myself, Arrow740, and Rebel XTi have been going round and round for a bit, and I believe we're at the point where repeated reverting is blocking progress on the article. --Clay Collier 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

symbols on palm of hand

I need to ask, which god or goddess has the crescent moon on one palm, and an eye on the other? 71.115.226.70 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)gaiamunda@msn.com

Notability of Stephen Knapp

There is a question on the notability of Stephen Knapp. I am unsure whether he is notable enough to keep. Please see Talk:Stephen Knapp#Notability and add comments -- Q Chris 06:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He is well-known for his writings within Gaudiya Vaishnava circles and is very well-known within ISKCON. I do not know how far his notabilitiy exists beyond this. His books are readily available on the likes of Amazon.com [14] if that means anything? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Zero comments from Hindu Vedic Seers at Vedas

I've just happened to see that the current article "Vedas" have near to "0" Hindu Views. All the discussions are from Non-Indian Views. All the citations at Vedas are a part of research work only from Non-Hindu authors. Only leaving 1 or 2 dictionary quotes from Apte, the current article is a 100% view from authors of Non-Hindu origin. It is a request that views from the Shankaracharyas and important Vedic Hindu Gurus, personalities be primarily quoted. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kindly have a quick look at the reference section at the article to understand the issue better. I've fully agree that there's no regional biases at wikipedia. But, 100% Non-Indian authors, is a big surprise. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That definitely violates WP:UNDUE. Ivory tower chit-chat shouldn't be the basis for wiki articles.Bakaman 20:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know how prominent editors failed to notice these. WP:UNDUE "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority." BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahakali

Please give your comments on Kali talk page about the merger of Mahakali into Kali page. Thank you. --Redtigerxyz 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merged with Kali by WP:MERGE and WP:BOLD.--Redtigerxyz 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The merged pages have been enlarged substantially to incorporate development scenario and other issues related to the river and its basin.User:Nvvchar, 20 Decemeber 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical Ram

It should be AFD'd or redirected to Rama IMO. Or once the page is cleaned up, it can be renamed as Devotee's perspective of Rama. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 06:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Bhargava Rama and Parshurama

Please express your views at Talk:Parashurama. --Redtigerxyz 14:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He is well known as Parshurama, the merger is needed. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 14:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Goddess or Devi, Devi not dieties ??????

An editor had "Removed all use of the word "goddess" and "god" unless appropriate." pointing " (Remember, deva!)" (in his own words) IN the article Kali and expressed "Devi does not equal goddess. There is only one god in Hinduism. Period. There is no polytheism. Devi would be more accurately translated "angel" but there is no English word that does it justice at all." and "Claiming the devotee worship gives Kali the right to the title "deity" is innacurate".

What is your take on this issue??? Please express it on Talk:Kālī#Goddess_v._Devi and help to form WP:CON--Redtigerxyz 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is deity an appropriate term to refer to Hindu celestial beings e.g. Deva, Devi, avataras, etc? Should we change the titles of these concepts on Wikipedia?--ॐJesucristo301 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most non-Hindus or whose who do not know Indian Languages will not identify the terms "Deva, Devi, and Avatar", they would have to reference to corresponding articles. We should take world view while writing the articles. The terms Deva, Devi and Avatars are widely translated in English as god, goddess and incarnation. (links to wikipedia articles "Deva, Devi, and Avatar" as shown) and are considered Deities. --Redtigerxyz 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In Hinduism, mostly those heavenly beings who are not worshipped like Yakshas, Apsaras, Gandharvas etc. are reffered as "celestial beings". Branding of Deva, Devi as Hindu celestial beings can be considered WP:OR. Please quote WP:RS to justify the renaming.--Redtigerxyz 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreoner, Hdeity infobox template used in most Hindu Deities articles uses the "god of ......." Etymology with the Affiliation as Deva or Devi to provide link to resp. articles(concepts).--Redtigerxyz 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrikas peer review

Please participate in the peer view of article Matrikas and give suggestions to improve it.--Redtigerxyz 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Durga Saptashati

This article Durga Saptashati should be merged with Devi Mahatmyam. Durga Saptashati is one of the names for Devi Mahatmyam. I am working on the expansion of the article on Devi_Mahatmyam.

Thanks.

--Sankarrukku 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Caṇḍī or Chandi

I would like to created a page on Caṇḍī or Chandi, the name of the Goddess who is the ultimate reality in Devi Mahatmyam. There is no page with the name Caṇḍī. However Chandi which is the common usage for this deity redirects to Durga. This needs to be undone.

I would welcome suggestions as to how I can go about it.

Thanks,

--Sankarrukku 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article on Caṇḍī created.--Sankarrukku 02:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Devi Mahatmya

is up for FAC. I doubt it will succeed but it still a wonderful article that other may like to work on. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help Sanathana

Unfortunately, I have no idea where this concept fits in but it's a new article. I don't know whether it is covered in another article or what. I almost put it up for AfD because the entire article seems like original research and there are no sources at all for it. I'm hoping someone here will either evaluate it or add sources or something. Thanks. Pig^man 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved the article (minus WP:OR material) to Sanatana which is the more common spelling Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was unable to evaluate it at all. Best, Pig^man 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalighat Kali Temple

I have created this page. Please have a look it and give suggestions for improvement. I have a lot of material and books for reference. Thank you.--Sankarrukku 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kanyakumari Temple

There is an article in the name of Devi Kanya Kumari which is stub class. I was expanding this article. Some observations:

1. Kanyakumari Amman is rarely if ever called Devi Kanyakumari.

2. The Kanyakumari temple is a major pilgrimage site. But it is not covered in detail in the article about the place Kanyakumari.

3. The ideal solution would be an article on Kanyakumari Temple. The present article Devi Kanya Kumari should be merged with that.

I request the opinions of other members.

If there are no objections I intend putting through an article on Kanyakumari Temple in a couple of days.

Thank you. --Sankarrukku 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Radha Soami

Can someone in charge of the relevant radha soami pages please look at 'Radha Soami' - there seems to be inaccurate information on there written in such a poor manner. The english is sub standard and seems totally unreliable. Something about thakur anukul something??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.124.196 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agnihotra

I have recently taken up the task of trying to get the Agnihotra article into better shape. It was a mess when I found it, but other than the really obvious stuff, the body of the article remains in poor condition. After taking a few runs at reorganization, I hit upon the following idea:

I know that agnihotra is performed differently according to tradition, and I think the article should reflect this. I have solid background knowledge in the traditions of the Arya Samaj, and I know how members of the Samaj perform it. Also, I have a good deal of literature on it from decent (PhD) sources. However, I can't write anything with the same degree of certainty in relation to other tradtions. Therefore I would like to request that anyone interested in collaborating on the article with tradition-specific information please post on the talk page. I would like to collect information from at least three traditions before making any major edits in the body of the current article. Thanks and hope to see you there. =) Aryaman (☼) 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hindu Godess

Image:Hindu Godess uploaded. Can anybody help me to find out which Goddess it is? It is not from a museum but a gift from a man who was as a little boy in India in the fifties with his parents.

--David Moerike (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakatapuram

Hi,

Shakatapuram is the location of a Hindu Math in Karnataka, India. This article has been nominated for AFD here. The article had WP:NPOV and WP:CITE issues which I have somewhat removed and have added citations from main stream newspapers. I am of the opinion that if the subject is covered in main stream newspapers, it is sufficiently notable and satisfies WP:NOTE. However, the nominator, User:Nlu differs on this as seen here. Can the experts in the Hinduism project opine on this? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism and ecology

Greeings. I just added an extremely brief section on Hinduism to the article on Religion and ecology. Perhaps folks here would be interested in expanding that section? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

HinduWiki.com links in navigational templates?

A few users, including User:Logician 34581 keep adding this link: The Hindu Wikipedia to Hindu navigational templates. How do members of this project view this addition? I have been reverting him since that site isn't "Wikipedia", is not associated with the Wikimedia Foundation and shouldn't be labeled "The Hindu Wikipedia". In addition, external links in navigational templates are generally frowned upon. --Versageek 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Redesign of notice board

How does this look? I've also tried a banner for this discussion page. Cheers, [sd] 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good! :-) Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've wait for some more input before I implement it. Best regards, [sd] 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sd31415/HNB is good but the red welcome note is TOO RED, an eye-sore for me. A more soothing colour may be used for the latter.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the new format for the notice board. For right now, I don't think the banner is necessary. Cheers, [sd] 03:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversion vote at Hinduism

A vote has been initiated at Talk:Hinduism#Conversion vote to form WP:CON on the issue of inclusion of the topic Conversion in the article. The vote period is 15 days ending on 04:18, 28 December 2007.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect links

On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriya

Under the heading "Kriya practices", all three "Kriya Yoga" point to the same link, whereas it is correct only for the first one.

I am not sure what are the correct links for the 2nd and 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.241.187 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Someone unnecessarily wikilinked every mention of the phrase 'Kriya Yoga' to the same place. ~ priyanath talk 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst and Voice of India

There are major WP:BLP attacks against pro-Hindu author Koenraad Elst. One user (Paul_Pieniezny (talk · contribs)) claims that Koenraad Elst has the same stance on immigration as the Vlaams Belang, and Dbachmann (talk · contribs) claims on the talkpage that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name.

The facts are that Elst has written that he has helped foreigners to integrate into Holland, that he has written that he has nothing to do with racism and xenophobia, and that he is not anti-Muslim (although he is anti-Islamic). I have added quotes on the talkpage that describe his stance on this: Koenraad Elst talkpage

The related Voice of India article has major POV problems. About 90 percent of the article is purely negative, with extensive quotes by Michael Witzel and Bergunder, and only one single pro-VOI quote. It is even in the categories Propaganda in India and Historical revisionism (political). This article is also related to WP:BLP because of the authors. I have described this here: here.

Since WP:BLP is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, please help to keep these articles neutral. If you know somebody who speaks Dutch, please ask him to help out (because some of Koenraad Elst's articles are in Dutch). Librorum Prohibitorum (talk)

Censorship on Hinduism/Indian politics articles

I have begun a discussion on the quite widespread incidence of censorship here. With censorship I mean mainly blankings and deletions in articles that are not explained on the talkpage, or only after asked. Of course, some find this a good thing, but in Wikipedia, I think it has lost some proportion, at least in some parts of wikipedia. Comments are welcome, as I will probably not add much more. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacrifice

Could someone please look at this article? The Hinduism section of the article deals entirely with animal sacrifices in Shaktism. There's no mention of things like sacrifice of karma, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to look at the edit history to see what you meant. Never mind that the "main article" at Yajna is a disaster area, trying to write sensibly about sacrifice in Hinduism is guaranteed to bring out the pietous hordes in force, intent on enforcing relatively modern obscurantist memes. Considering that the section deleted could have been edited instead (the summary comment is revealing), I really wonder whether the point is to describe it or whitewash it. rudra (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, to fringefy it. The short paragraph now remaining has acquired not one but two references to some Swami or other, who is also the author of... wait for it... "Lemurian Scrolls". rudra (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sacred (comparative religion) article needs a Hinduism section

The Sacred (comparative religion) article has sections for Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Buddhism but currently no entry for Hinduism. This is actually a difficult topic for someone to deal with comprehensively and concisely, as it would have to cover places, people, nature, times, nature, murtis, shakti, and probably a whole load of other things. If anyone feels up to the job I think it would be a good addition. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Shri Shringirishi Maharaj

Saw this new unsourced article Shri Shringirishi Maharaj, but it has 0 ghit sunder that name and I don't know enough about the Hindu religion to say if its notable, hoax, or other. Could someone here who knows more take a quick look? Mbisanz (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not notable. Maybe such Brahmins do exist - with some local upapurana to sanctify the claimed ancestry - in which case a squib might be appropriate in Brahmin. I have some sympathy for "Shringirishi" as the original is a tongue-twister in modern Indian languages, but this is also good indication that the source material, if any, is apocryphal. rudra (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The AfD for this brought another article to light, Shringi Rishi, which while being somewhat better written, is still devoid of references, and mostly a WP:COATRACK for a purana-style origin myth. I added a line to Brahmin on the Sukhwal Brahmins, as that's a much better place to get their existence verified. rudra (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not "Shringirishi" but real name in Ramayana is Rishyashringa. probably article title should be changed to real name.Lokesh 2000 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal between Indian religion, Eastern religion, and Eastern philosophy

I have proposed a merge of these three articles. Please see Talk:Eastern philosophy#Merger proposal. Zenwhat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Table in Hinduism and Sikhism contains wrong info and nonsense! - request for someone to fix!

The table in the Hinduism and Sikhism article appears to have a mixture of nonsense and incorrect information for the Hindu sects when compared against Sikhism. For example the line

12. Use of force accepted if other means fail

This has "Sex-methodology accepted. Ahimsa." next to it for Vishnavism. This appears to be wrong in that Vishnava are not total pacifists, as the Gita says, when it is correct to fight then fight. The "Sex-methodology accepted." bit just looks like nonsense to me.

Please could someone fix this table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist? It's a grab bag of random assertions. Unless scholarly studies specifically addressing the subject of comparison can be sourced, the article at best will be a quote farm of conflicting views. Which means that it's basically an edit-war magnet. It should be deleted as OR. rudra (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to officially propose its deletion I would certainly support it. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just fixed some the heavily POV statements given in the table comparison section, but would still vote for it's deletion due to the nature of the work needed. It's too big a job and would be better scrap the whole lot, or start afresh. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just got reverted. It seems that the entire table is a quote. Maybe we should be adding copyvio to the list of the article's sins. rudra (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversion in Hinduism

Dear All. Multiple viewpoints are required to hopefully settle a debate in regards to Hinduism#Conversion. Please could anyone interested in this subject please take a look, and add comments or make suggestions for improvement on the talk page. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hindu philosophy

A user has made mass removal of names of Hindu teachers from Template:Hindu philosophy and has decided to rewrite the template altogether. Rather than getting into an edit conflict there, I'm stepping aside and asking others to look at it. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the user in question has added 2 names (Gandhi and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) and removed some others pending evidence that they genuinely are significant enough as modern Hindu philosophers (as per the talk page). It's difficult to see why people like Ayya Vaikundar were included while people like Gandhi and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan were not. --Simon D M (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

The Vaishnavism page has an insidious ISKCON bias and demonstrates no historical context nor development and lacks information about cultural contact and geographic dissemination. I have endeavoured to introduce Tantric Vaishnavism on the page and have met with fervent, uniformed dogmatism. I would appreciate assistance in progressing the historical context and development of the Vaishnavism page.
Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)}

The article has been built up over time by a number of editors with knowledge of Vaishnavism. Any balanced opinions and additions are more than welcomed. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vasanas has "expert help needed" template.

I have noticed that the article Vasanas has an "expert help needed" template. Can anyone here help (Its something I was looking up and know little about). -- Q Chris (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of bull, if not a WP:COATRACK for the usual run of feelgoodisms and platitudes from some "Mission" or another (i.e. WP:FRINGE). Neither Apte nor Monier-Williams offer "fragrance" or "smell" as a possible meaning of vasana, so this seems to have been pulled from where the sun don't shine. rudra (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have found this [15]

vāsana 1

vāsana n. the act of perfuming or fumigating, infusing, steeping Gīt. Sch

• (ā), f. id. Śiś. Sch

Compare to

vāsanā

vāsanā f. the impression of anything remaining unconsciously in the mind, the present consciousness of past perceptions, knowledge derived from memory Śaṃk. Kāv. Kathās

• fancy, imagination, idea, notion, false notion, mistake (ifc., e.g. bheda-v○, the mistake that there is a difference) ib. Rājat. Sarvad. &c

• thinking of, longing for, expectation, desire, inclination Kathās

• liking, respectful regard Bhām

• trust, confidence W

• (in math.) proof, demonstration (= upapatti) Gol

• a kind of metre Col

• N. of Durgā BhP

• of the wife of Arka ib

• of a Comm. on the Siddhânta-śiromaṇi

As a total non-expert it would look as though the authors confused vāsana and vāsanā. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. vāsanā is a well-known word (with "thinking of, longing for, expectation, desire, inclination" as the usual meaning in modern usage). OTOH, vāsana/ā as fumigation looks like a specialized, literary usage (Gīt. == Gītagovinda and Śiś. == Śiśupālavadha; Sch == Scholiast or Commentator), not common at all. Either way, all this New Age-y philosophizing still looks completely homegrown. rudra (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The more I look into it the more it looks like the article is a soapbox. I have proposed deletion. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed in Chandogya Upanishad

I'm doin my best to increase content but whats the use if no one understands it ? yes, this is what happening in Upanishad articles. they are extremely difficult to translate and when I do it using my best english, they look too esoteric even to indians let alone what a western reader would feel. So can anyone help to improve their readability without sacrificing content and its meaining?. any takers? Lets start with Chandogya Upanishad. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not. Seriously. It's WP:OR to summarize Upanishadic material without WP:RS, not to mention inadvertent WP:PEACOCK ("esoteric meditation technique"). It may be better to factor out some portions into separate articles. I have the "stories" in mind here, e.g. Satyakama: you can tell the story independently, and have a link to it from a simple statement in Chandogya Upanishad. (Another case is the Vaisvanara story (ChU.5.11.1-19.2): the same story is also told, with interesting differences, in the Shatapatha Brahmana, 10.6.1.1-11.) rudra (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically translating to english from Swami Adidevananda's kannada rendering of chandogya. please see Chhandyogapanishad by Sri Adidevananda(Kannada translation). So it is not WP:OR. yes, I too have in mind starting different articles from main one. We can tell story part of this upanishad that way, but how to tell non story part? such as Sama Upasana, Madhu Vidya, Shandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya etc?? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that won't do. Your translations qualify as WP:OR, and there is no practicable way for English-language Wikipedia to verify the credentials of a Kannada author, not to mention that Sri Adidevananda would seem to be a religious rather than an academic person. We need WP:RS in English by reputed scholars. One possibility, for example, could be to summarize the section titles in Radhakrishnan's Principal Upanishads. But the basic problem remains: given the vast literature on what the Upanishads mean, it is very difficult to summarize, beyond a general overall description, what they say in a form suitable for an encyclopedia. rudra (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why religious scholars cant be counted ? perhaps they sometimes know much deeper than academic ones. more over Adidevananda was a great scholar and has a page on wikipedia for himself. see Adidevananda. He has also authored religious books in English. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCES for the relevant policy and the criteria involved. There is also the WP:RSN noticeboard where you can have proposed sources discussed. In a nutshell, we need material that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise vetted by other reputable authorities on the subject. No disrespect to Sri Adidevananda, but anyone can write and publish a book. rudra (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is great, religious works cannot be written about on WP because their authors didn't get PhDs from modern universities!!! rudra, you need to re-read the policy here as it does state that religious scholars are given priority and authority here. Kkm5848 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where? rudra (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[16] Kkm5848 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, read that thread again. rudra (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism & Honor Killing

Hello,

There is a discussion going on here about whether sati, an ancient form of suicide in which a woman voluntarily immolates herself, is considered honor killing.

Thanks Nikkul (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraivan Temple

Hi. Does this project have a peer review department? WP:HAWAII doesn't have one just yet (working on creating it right now) but I would like to request the members of this project to review this article and make suggestions for improvement. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram or Raghupathi Raghava Rajaram?

These two articles need to be merged, but which is the (more) encyclopedic spelling? And I don't know how to merge two articles and their histories, so help is also needed there. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was Raghupati Raghavaraja Ram, but I can see how 'Raja' could be tacked onto 'Ram' instead. So Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram may be best (and, "pathi" Is Tamil orthography, not English, definitely no go). rudra (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a winner then, with your suggestion of Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. It beats Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram by a 2:1 ratio on Google Scholar and Google Books. The other two are negligible to non-existent there. Any suggestions on how to merge two articles, and their histories, into a new article?

i.e., Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram plus Raghupathi Raghava Rajaram -----> Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. ~ priyanath talk 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram seems the more informative article, so we could just rename it (i.e. with a move). Raghupathi Raghava Rajaram has a factoid about a movie and a terrible translation that isn't worth keeping. So we could just redirect it, and add the factoid with an edit to the Popular Culture section. That should do it: I'm not sure that merging histories is worth the trouble. rudra (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. rudra (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I didn't think the histories were worth the trouble either, but didn't want to get slapped by a wikilawyer. ~ priyanath talk 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for notable religious leaders in ISKCON

• Question On the official Governing Body Commission website it states that there are "around 48" members. [17] So my question is are all 48 notable due to membership on the GBC of ISKCON? These 48 could be a good starting place for a discussion on a minimum standard for notablilty for religious leaders in ISKCON. I believe there needs to be some criteria set for establishing, "what is a notable ISKCON religious leader?" Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ism schism, there are about 70 Swamis currently within ISKCON, of which some are also members of the GBC. A number of the GBC are managers/administrators. Personally I don't see how we can treat a leader within ISKCON any differently than any other religious leader in terms of notability? It seems pointless to me to include all 48 GBC, or all 70 Swamis as I'm sure you would agree, but removing them all is also equally pointless. Some may be notable because of having a large amount of disciples, others may be notable because of works they have written, or because they have been influential within ISKCON for a large period of time, or at a particularly noteworthy time, which is of interest in encyclopedic terms. Other than using WP:NOTE I don't know what else we can do, but some leaders who are very notable within Gaudiya Vaishnavism may not have a large amount of available english works written on them, so sourcing can sometimes be somewhat problematic. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A whole string of essentially cloned individual articles, with the usual series of weasel words to get around WP:N ("has lectured widely", etc etc etc), is just a subtle form of spam. We can redirect many of these articles to Governing Body Commission. That way, if a search begins with the name, it will go the article that carries the context in which the name has any notability. rudra (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Following up on that, it's important to know the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a promotional brochure. A section in Governing Body Commission could have a list of the current members with short squibs (e.g. previous name and/or origin, how many years in the organization, focus of activity, but keep this short!) that would effectively summarize the individual articles. Now, with the redirects, no essential information will be lost, and suspicions that WP is being used to spiel ISKCON can be quelled. rudra (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion Rudra. Personally I havn't put much work into creating these articles for the very reasons you give above. But neither do I feel they should all be deleted without proper explanation, or reasoning. To remove any pov, and then condense some of the articles into one GBC article (or similar) would make much more sense. I'll have a think... Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I looked into it there really isn't enough of the GBC member articles to warrant doing this, although that could be future task for the GBC article. Probably the best idea is just to delete some of the less noteable pages, especially of living persons where facts cannot be verified, and clean-up the remaining ones. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ethic of reciprocity#Hinduism section - help needed

The Ethic of reciprocity#Hinduismsection is very light compared to the entries for other religions. It has one quotation, which I believe to be a very liberal translation of the [Gita 12 vs 18 and 19]. I have added a reference to this, as there was a "citation needed" tag. Could someone please confirm that I have given the right reference, and I am sure there are more relevant quotes than just this one! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible ISKCON subproject

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#ISKCON work group or subproject? regarding the possibility of creating a new work group for articles relating to ISKCON. As a bit of an outsider, my own information on the subject leads me to think that the group might be better made a subproject of this project, possibly related to the Vaishnavism subproject. Any individuals who have opinions on the creation of such a subproject, either as part of this project or the religion project, shuld feel free to indicate their opinions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism project banner questions

I note the Template:WikiProject Hinduism includes assessment parameters for a "vedanta" group which doesn't exist, but no such parameters for a "vaishnava" group which does, although with only one member to date. Is there any thought to perhaps attempting to revive a vedanta group, would there be any reservations about altering those terms to "vaishnava" terms if not, and is there any preference for what, if any, image to place on the Vaishnava subbanner? John Carter (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)