Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Archive 4

Please remove the swastika from the welcome template

Following D-Boy's mass 'archiving' of this active topic, I am hoping we can keep the discussion civil. I'd like to humbly request that the swastika be removed from the welcome template, in favor of the Aum, or of no images at all. In this way users can be welcomed to the project without possible insult - and the nature of the swastika as a symbol of good fortune in Hinduism can be learned by the users at their own pace, without fear of unintentional insult. Many thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The results of the previous poll regarding this subject were as follows:

• Option A:Include Swastika and Aum with a(n) educatory note accompaying Swastika - 9 indications of support
• Option B:Delete Swastika as it could cause distress amongst some in the Wikicommunity - 4 indications of support
• Option C:Delete both Swastika and Aum - 3 indications of support
• Option D:I disagree with all three above options and have my own idea:5 indications of support, three of which were "no action whatsoever", one of which was "(i)f one goes, all should go!" Badbilltucker 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop the freaking polls! We've had 4 of these.--D-Boy 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Stop the polls. Bill, if I'm not mistaken you yourself said they were a 'tally', not a 'vote', to avoid perceived confusion by some. The unofficial, non-deterministic excuse you offered was the only reason I even responded to it in the first place. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what are you doing, posting the same question again? Clearly, you could revert the template yourself. However, wikipedia is built upon Wikipedia:Consensus. What other means of coming to a decision are you proposing, if it is a different one? By the indications of support above, there is a consensus (over 50% of respondents) indicating that option A is their choice. I acknowledge that their may be subsequent indications of opinion. However, I did think it valuable to include the results. Badbilltucker 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you keep polling?--D-Boy 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who, me? I haven't polled anyone - I objected to the polls. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't been editing anything else for the past couple of days.--D-Boy 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, is focusing on one or two issues at a time (and at the same time fixing vandalism) against WP policy? That's my editing style. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not....--D-Boy 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So why make a comment like that except to impugn my motives? Seems pretty bad faith and unwarranted. I didn't coomplain when you 'archived' active conversations (since I was being attacked, I didn't mind a fresh start). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No. However, it is considered good form to respond to direct questions. As I have just posted above, the clear consensus (which is what wikipedia guidelines call for) to date is for Option A, retaining the aum and swastika. Clearly, however, not all voices have yet been heard. And, if as you stated, you seem to object to "polls", which are in fact the only way to try to abide by this guideline, then what other means of determining are you suggesting? Badbilltucker 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your sumup of the consensus - 9 'votes' to keep it unchanged, and 7 'votes' to remove one or more images. That's not consensus and you yourself described it as being 'not the final tally'. As far as direct questions, which are you awaiting an answer? I find it very telling that yet again you're talking about me, instead of the issue at hand. My kingdom for a willing self-prohibition on personal attacks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I believe that you may have yourself acted inappropriately above, by explicitly rephrasing the "indications of support" which was the phrase I used to the more perjorative "vote" for your own purposes. Personally, I can and do take that willfull misstatement of yours for what are apparently prejudicial purposes as being an attack in and of itself. And, as indicated above, I added that to make it easier when the final determination is made. Also, I note that once again you have failed to respond to a direct question. As I asked, if, as you seem to indicate, you prefer some other means of deciding these things other than by following an explicit guideline, please say so directly. To date, you have indicated that you "object" to attempts to follow this guideline. What other means are you proposing? As for the questions, please see the last comment on the third archived page, which you have yet to respond to. Badbilltucker 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that my use of ONE word - 'vote', instead of 'poll' - was a willful misstatement as you characterize it, I can only assure you it wasn't and point out that after all the words exchanged thus far, your taking one word in that way may illustrate that you are seeing attacks where none exist, merely to justify an attack upon me. As far as my preferred method of resolving this, it would be exactly what I have said all along - to continue discussion about the use of a controversial symbol on a welcome template, without distracting personal attacks and without discussion-derailing 'non-vote-polls'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, bill, that was a non-consensus result. However, since it leaned towards the explanatory note option, the note is already present, and no-one seems terribly unhappy with it, can we just go with that? --tjstrf talk 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no objections whatever. However, I am not the one who raised the question again. It seems to me that given the rather limited time since it was first proposed, it might be possible that several interested parties may have not yet weighed in. The first response above was simply to indicate what opinions had been expressed to date. Badbilltucker 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The question Badbill raised above is a valid one, which is essentially "is resolution possible, and, if so, how." What sign will we eventually take to mean that there is consensus one way or the other? We're never going to reach the point where we say "ok, looks like everyone agrees on X." (Or do you think we will? I'm pessimistic on that, and don't want to end up browbeating each other for weeks until everyone gets too pissed off to care.) So if anyone has a solution to suggest - suggest it. My thinking is: using the tally results isn't a terrible idea, just because it would provide a solution and course of action. It's not ideal, but it's an approach. --TheOtherBob 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice, I would give the matter the full five days that are generally accorded other attempts at determining consensus. Also, I would probably go further to perhaps determine if any people who indicate an interest one way or another were drawn here by attempts at canvassing and votestacking, to prevent any attempts to draw in outsiders who would otherwise not even be aware of the discussion. Badbilltucker 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, we could discuss IN GOOD FAITH the wisdom of using of a controversial, optional symbol on a welcome template - a template that is generally placed on a user's page without their foreknowledge. But that would require us to avoid attacking other editors, marginalizing their views and impugning their motives. Not sure if the interested parties that have been involved thus far are up to committing to such conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note once again the effort to ignore and refuse to answer directly asked questions. And, by Ryan's willful misstatement of my earlier statement, I can only assume that she includes herself in the group of people who "attack other editors, marginalizing their views and impugning their motives." Badbilltucker 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You've said that a few times now - what questions, directly asked, have I avoided answering directly? If you mean "Do I believe resolution is possible?" My answer is a decided YES. I don't see why this issue is different from any other discussion of template (non-article space) content on WP. Your description of my conduct is to me, grossly inaccurate to the point of attempting to exclude me from having my point being considered. Please feel free to bring me to the personal attack noticeboard, RfC, or AN/I if you are concerned I'm attacking, marginalizing or impugning other editors. I'm absolutely sure I'm not, and I stand by my comments as a result. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right to question my phrasing. My apologies. I had previously used the phrase failed to respond to, and this used stronger language, for which I apologize. However, I have noted that you have once again failed to respond to the points I have made earlier which call into question whether your earlier statements are themselves accurate. Thank you for having not changed my specific phrasing this time. However, in a show of the good faith you insist that others take for granted, I would request that you directly respond to the points that I have already noted you have failed to respond to. And, I ask again, please directly and unambiguouly respond to the question of which means other than the official guideline you wish to follow in this particular instance, a direct question you have yet to answer directly and clearly. And, for what it's worth, bolding everything to seem like screaming doesn't ever really help anyone's arguments. Badbilltucker 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am unsure which specifc points you are referring and I decidely want to avoid the view that I am avoiding any issues at all. To avoid clutter, please list 'em on my talk page, or some other place (or here if you'd like) and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Last, emphasis is emphasis, not screaming. I'm sorry if bolding statements I wish to emphasize disturbs you and I'll try to do so judiciously. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, we have been discussing in good faith. I think you're mistaking "in good faith" for "agreeing with you". --tjstrf talk 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

People are welcome to disagree - but this conversation has been about me, and not the issue of the template - and without substantiation of the criticism (making clear to me which points you believe I'm 'avoiding'), I see such conduct as outside the bounds of good faith. I would be delighted to focus on the issue and have not returned the attacks leveled here, and on the 'archived' conversations. Voicing disagreement is the first step to consensus. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked specifically which points I've not responded... I earnestly want to answer them and return this discussion to the issue at hand - the template's usage of the swastika. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just found Badbill's point: "which means other than the official guideline you wish to follow in this particular instance"... I'm not sure which official guideline is being referred to, but I'm perfectly happy to leave the template unchanged, and to continue to discuss the issue to try to find a good accommodation for all. Does this satisfy the question? Do I understand it correctly? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you couldn't see on the page linked to that consensus is the official guideline. It is right on the top of the page there.

I would note that the fact that the discussion was archived only a few hours ago does not free you from having to possibly respond to them, particularly if they are valid points which would seem to mitigate the strength or validity of several of your own statements. However,

• Response is not all that is generally required in civil conversation. Answering direct questions directly helps a little too. I ask again, what other means than following the established guidelines would you want followed in this case? Please answer the question directly, as "responses" which do not answer the question are far from useful.
• The fact that those comments were made on a page which has since been archived does not free you from the requirement in civil conversation to respond to them, at least inherently. On that basis, I would request that you respond to them on that page, and provide a summary of them here.
• And, finally, the easiest way to allow the conversation to continue is by not repeatedly, in an off-topic way, impugning and attacking others. If you would allow the conversation to continue without these off-topic comments of yours, and allow other people to actually address the attempt to determine consensus without further off-topic comment and attacks upon others (calling something a "personal attack" is itself a form of attack), then it could continue. On that basis, I would request that all parties more or less shut up about the subject and allow other interested individuals to chime in. On that basis, in an attempt to determine consensus, I restate the question and responses to date. Badbilltucker 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I believe I've answered all questions directly (when those questions have been clear to me). I want to follow no guidelines other than the 'official' guidelines.

2. I'm not sure which points on the active conversation (now archived) I haven't responded to... and I don't think it makes sense to respond on an archive page. I recommend you or D-Boy restore the sections with active conversations (which imho should not have been archived at all to avoid precisely this problem), to which I have not responded. I will be more than happy to respond to them if they're clear to me.

3. I agree. I have impugned no one. You however have asked (as one example) for proof of my ethnic heritage - to substantiate whether I know enough about Germany, etc., and I see those sorts of comments as decidedly unproductive. As far as 'shutting up', I'm perfectly happy to give the conversation some 'air' - but that request is in direct opposition to your other concern (that I've not responded to direct questions). I don't want to be perceived as avoiding questions or in any way duplicitous... so if I know which questions are unresponded to thus far, I'll respond briefly and address that concern of yours. Then I'll give it some space, to address the other concern of yours. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(Update: if the 'attempt to determine consensus' section below is 'the questions' to which you refer, I believe sincerely that I have answered it already - that I agree with B and C - but that I don't believe a poll can determine consensus. If that is a satisfactory answer, I'll leave it lay and let others respond. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, you have clearly and explicitly once again "rephrased" a statement in a clearly prejudicial way which I believe clearly and explicitly qualifies as a personal attack. At no point did I ask you your genetic heritage. I inquired about on what basis you viewed yourself as being qualified to express a blanket comment about German law whose reasons have changed in the past few years, and in the process indicated my own genetic heritage and, more importantly, that I studied in Germany for two years. Your misrepresentation of that statement for rhetorical purposes is, if conscious, contemptible, and, if uncounscious, shows a rather less than desirable attention to detail. Badbilltucker 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your question was a contemptible question to ask, since personal expertise by WP editors is not a basis for validating their comments. I'm not sure what else can be done to satisfy your concerns, but I'm happy to continue to try to do so. If you sincerely believe my comments were a personal attack, you know what forum to pursue it and I welcome the community's opinion of my comments - I'm confident they will be seen properly. In any case, I do wish you well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The question that seems to have been asked by Badbilltucker is:

"if as you stated, you seem to object to "polls", which are in fact the only way to try to abide by this guideline, then what other means of determining are you suggesting?"

And the answer given by RyanFreisling was:

"As far as my preferred method of resolving this, it would be exactly what I have said all along - to continue discussion about the use of a controversial symbol on a welcome template, without distracting personal attacks and without discussion-derailing 'non-vote-polls'."

Am I missing something in the "respond to direct questions" side-controversy? --BostonMA ^talk 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a direct answer. I apologize. It is however a clearly and explicitly useless answer, as such "discussion" would seemingly be neverending. I thought that it could be assumed that a direct answer also meant a useful answer, and failed to see that a direct, if at least potentially useless, answer was in fact provided. Again, my apologies. Badbilltucker 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies of course accepted, no hard feelings and let's all renew our commitment to try to keep the acrimony out of what is a difficult topic of discussion. We may disagree vehemently with each others' positions, but we won't help anything by personalizing the debate. You have my most sincere thanks and apologies for anything I may have done to offend you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think the answer is a very useful answer. Ryan has not simply suggested that we continue discussing, which obviously could go on forever. Ryan has also suggested that the discussion should continue "without distracting personal attacks and without discussion-derailing 'non-vote-polls'". I believe the latter point is a key ingredient to a successful discussion. --BostonMA ^talk 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would note to both sides, though, that statements in the vein of "we should stop the personal attacks that the other side is making" are in themselves likely to lead to further discussion about the people rather than the content. (Like this comment, I guess. Oh well - that's not my intention, and you see my point.) Don't make personal attacks, don't claim personal attacks, stick to the subject rather than the contributors - maybe that will work. However, we've had a pretty good faith debate here. It derailed when everyone had made their points and people just didn't agree - that's why I'm pessimistic about further debate getting to a resolution. But if people want to try, it's worth some type of shot. --TheOtherBob 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I note the "other party" has seemed to retire from the discussion, for whatever reason, and I intend to as well. However, there may well be other additional parties out there who legitimately regularly visit this page who have not yet expressed an opinion. This "extension" is more or less intended for their benefit, so that the broadest possible number of opinions can be included before a final determination is reached. Badbilltucker 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems we are not the only ones having trouble with this

Hindus opposing EU swastika ban Teardrop onthefire 09:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to determine consensus

It has been proposed that the swastika symbol be removed from the welcome template. In an attempt to determine consensus, the question has been asked whether the template should have the swastika symbol removed or not. To date, the following responses have been received. The comments on the now-archived page regarding this subject were as follows:

• Option A:Include Swastika and Aum with a(n) educatory note accompaying Swastika - 9 indications of support
• Option B:Delete Swastika as it could cause distress amongst some in the Wikicommunity - 4 indications of support
• Option C:Delete both Swastika and Aum - 3 indications of support
• Option D:I disagree with all three above options and have my own idea:5 indications of support, three of which were "no action whatsoever", one of which was "(i)f one goes, all should go!" *Any other editors who become aware of this discussion through normal means are encouraged to respond below, so that we can try to determine what the consensus opinion on this matter is. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional opinions should be indicated below:

Continuation of Consensus determination discussion

• Any other editors who become aware of this discussion through normal means are encouraged to respond below, so that we can try to determine what the consensus opinion on this matter is. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one that left the "If one goes, all should go" comment. What I meant was if the swastika is removed from the Hindu welcome box, the symbols of all religious projects should go. However, I would ultimately like all symbols to stay the way they are. Anyway, I think the ‘tally’ shows that many people don’t want it deleted. (Ghostexorcist 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

This is extremely annoying.--D-Boy 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist's point seems to be "let's make a point".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And I totally agree with him.--D-Boy 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has already been determined. We keep the conciliatory and educational message that was added to the template, explaining why the Hindu swastika is a sacred symbol to Hindus, and move on. ॐ Priyanath talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we do have a consensus of all those editors who have seen this discussion in the past day or so. However, a full consensus would probably involve the input of other editors who may check this page, less regularly. I am hoping to give these editors, who check in less regularly, a chance to offer their input as well. That is why I proposed that it be allowed to continue for five days, which is the standard time period to determine AfDs. I hope that this is agreeable to everyone. However, if consensus opposes it, I would withdraw the request. Badbilltucker 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we do have a consensus of all those editors who have seen this discussion ??? Um, 9/4/3/5 doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to me. --BostonMA ^talk 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I was mistakenly repeating the phrasing for rhetorical purposes, to highlight the fact that not everybody has "chimed in" yet. However, I certainly hope that other people take the opportunity to express an opinion. Also, it should be noted that Ryan has also indicated an approval for the

• Option C

which she had not done earlier. Badbilltucker 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill, with all due respect, Options B and C are both closest to my preference. If I hadn't answered, this numerical assessment would not reflect my views, so I answered to avoid being misrepresented. B and C, please. You're welcome to update the tally accordingly. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wasn't intending to "update the totals" until the end, to avoid possibly misleading people (and to avoid having to change them everytime an opinion was expressed). You had already indicated B the first time around, and it is included in the prior totals, which is why I only added C as an addition. But, I see your point. On that basis, I have added sections above to more easily facilitate additional opinions. Badbilltucker 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand but I'll leave it alone for now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't dab in effect choose option 3? He realised that images are not necessary on user-templates ("not necessary" does not equate to evil) Gizza^{Chat ©} 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The key word is "effectively." To indicate as much would be more in the area of determining what other people intended to say, which is generally risky. Badbilltucker 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talk page. Also, I've removed my sig from 'Option C', since I didn't put it there in the first place. It is my sincere hope that this will not be perceived by anyone as inflammatory (as it is not intended to be), but rather as my decision not to have anyone but me sign for me. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late for that...--D-Boy 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of time let's keep status quo.Bakaman 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that only 5 out of 16 people support the status quo :) And the success of the Wiki is based on the principle of change, sometimes for the worse but most of the time for the better. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of wikimedia servers. I think that IZAK should seriously go brood on his actions. I'm amazed you guys let one or two users mess up WP:HINDU like this and waste time with this bakwaas. Bakaman 06:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interim decision and one-month break for analysis?

I know this won't be popular amongst some (I don't like it much anyway, makes the template even more text-cluttered than the earlier solution) but this discussion doesn't have an end in sight, why don't we keep what we have right now (the educatory note) and also add a small message at the end of the note:

If you have taken offense to the Hindu Swastika please click here.

The page should have a short summary of what the Swastika is and why it's not a Nazi symbol and should also have a section where people who are offended can sign their names and give their opinions. In one month we can analyse the results and return to this time-sapping debate. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting proposal - I like it, but it seems somewhat unprecedented. Just for the sake of completeness, should we not run this idea by some other forum or forums (administrator's noticeboard, etc.), for feedback and to make sure we're not all collectively missing another avenue besides this 'one-month-chillout+survey' idea? Just asking and I'm not sure what that forum would be - but as much as I like the idea I find it hard to believe that we're that much of an unprecedented situation. Excellent proposal. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NobleEagle's idea seems pretty okay. Perhaps there could be some wording that also allows for opinions to be expressed by those who are not necessarily offended.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, not sure about the length of time. It might be too short since we may not get enough feedback. Then again, it could be too long for those who don't like having the notice. Btw, this is only for Template:Hindu links right? Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, too, if it fit's with Wikipedia protocols (though I think we're all making it up as we go along). And I second the opinion of Nat Krause of rewording it so it invites opinions from all. Something more like "What do you think of seeing the Hindu Swastika here with the explanation? Did you take offense? Did you find it educational? We're interested in your feedback (link)". I also think a one month (more?) break would give time for people to cool down. ॐ Priyanath talk 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an innovative suggestion ! I think its use would be justified under WP:IAR if need be, although that is always a tricky proposition. A minor suggestion: perhaps we can reword the message as "If you find the use of the Hindu Swastika offensive please click here" or "If you have views on the using the Hindu Swastika on this template, please click here" ... still too long though. Any suggestions ? Abecedare 05:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we want to invite the views of everyone. I think we would learn much more that way, and maybe even get some good ideas for another solution. Here's a shorter version of what I suggested above, if indeed shortness is the main priority: "What do you think of seeing the Hindu Swastika here? Did you take offense? Did you find it educational? Feedback(link)" ॐ Priyanath talk 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe phrasing like "If you would like to leave any comments on the presence of the swastika on this templage, positive of negative, please feel free to do so {here}}". If we use anything other than the standard phrasing I tend to see in such instances, we might be seen by some as indicating that a certain response is more expected than another, which would skew the results. Badbilltucker 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset indenting> That sounds good to me. Also I suggest that we leave a message on the feedback link asking visitors to express their own thoughts in one place, but not debate/counter-debate other visitor's points - so that it does not turn into a big back-and-forth like this discussion. Abecedare 05:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is important. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though without the "back-and-forth" nobody may show up :-) ॐ Priyanath talk 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No discussing between the people, just each of their opinions. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To expand upon my earlier comment: a person should be free to write an essay on the topic, if he/she so wishes; comment on all sides of the issue; even amend their own post if their mind changes; the only restriction being that they do so in their "own section" and not in the form of alternate comments typical of a talk page. I am thinking in terms of "Statement by <visitor 1>", "Statement by <visitor 2>" structure analogous to the statements sections in a Requests_for_arbitration case. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, maybe for the sake of clarity and ease of use, it might work best if the page were broken up into sections like,

Support

Comments by User W

Oppose

Comments by User X

Neutral

Comments by User Y

Other

Comments by User Z.

Doing so might make it easier to see what the current range of opinions is. Badbilltucker 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought people wouldn't support my idea but both sides of the debate have come out and expressed support, I think we need a break from this constant argument so we should try out this. So I'll create Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika as an example but I'll only alter {{Hindu Links}} once everyone's had a chance to express support or opposition. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both sides? Apart from Ryan, we haven't seen too many of the Jewish editors comment yet. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan's been the most vocal of all the editors we've seen so far. Anyway, I've created it because I have time today, you or some admin can delete it if it's later found out to be a bad idea. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the Jewish editors piping up again, just to say...Ryan is Jewish? When did that happen?! Tomer^talk 06:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, how about saying Ryan is one of the people who represents the Jewish/Western/Non-Hindu side of the debate. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Thanks Nobleeagle :-). --BostonMA ^talk 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever my faith is (Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zoroastrianism, Church of the Poison Mind, etc.) it's my own business and it's kinda not cool to make such claims. Everyone's ideas should be considered independently of whatever faith (or whatever non-faith) they follow - or don't follow, yes? I don't think I've made the assumption that anyone here is Hindu, or Jainist, or Moonie for that matter - but I have made the point stridently that this should not be set up as a 'Hindus vs. Jews' issue (it's not). The non-dualistic nature of this debate should already be evident as the 'poll' had four, not two, options. Overally, I'd prefer we not go down the road of putting metaphorical stars or swastikas on peoples' coats to determine 'sides' and let their ideas alone speak for them. That's the WP way as I understand it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only potential problem I see is that it's going to be highly dependent on how much the welcome template is used in the next month. In the past it's gone through stages of heavy use followed by almost complete disuse. This experiment will only be useful if the template gets put on a lot of talk pages. Otherwise, it's an interesting experiment, and I'll follow it closely. Dbratton 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add one possible caveat. It seems to me at least very possible that there might be a disproportionate number of people expressing an opinion there who do so simply to express a general rejection of the swastika in all of its forms on the basis of it being tied to the Nazi holocaust. In particular, I think that some of the more adamant adherents of possibly almost Zionist thought would be among the most likely to respond, particularly if this discussion is linked to on any of the Jewish project talk pages. (I am not numbering Ryan among the group of the Zionist group, by the way). Several individuals from other Wikipedia and general-interest groups would probably be less motivated to respond, and on that basis their opinions may very easily be underrepresented in the number of opinions expressed. Having said that, I have no way of knowing how to accomodate for it. However, I very much think indicating this page exists primarily, perhaps exclusively, on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page would probably be the best way to ensure that the number of respondents wouldn't disproportionately come from any single group. Badbilltucker 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo Bill's concern, but from the reverse perspective. Like Bill's Zionist concerns, I have a concern that individuals who simply want to promulgate the use of the swastika regardless of its meaning to Hindus may indicate 'no offense' or 'keep the swastika' not for the good of WP, but merely to maintain or broaden the use of the symbol in order to 'combat Zionism' or the like. Should we consider correlating the responders with their contributions to the project, or to the debate? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and I acknowledge I hadn't thought of the anti-Zionism angle. I do think that just listing it on RfC, and, maybe, checking to see if any additional links to the discussion are added on any pages for the purposes of improper canvassing from any side. If there are such links, we might consider any responses made on those pages and maybe take that into account in the final determination. Clearly, I think User:JudaismRightorWrong, User:SiegHeil!, andUser:ZionismIsEverywhere (or similar parties) might be considered less than objective parties, and that might be taken into account in the determination as well. Badbilltucker 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This idea is becoming more and more similar to a simple RfC, which isn't a bad thing; personally I think that following an established Wiki approach to such situations is better than coming up with a new, unproven method. Either way, if we're weighting the opinions of other editors based on their edit histories and other activities, who's going to be the judge of which opinions count and which don't? Dbratton 15:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I actually avoided that question directly earlier, partially because I have no idea how or who should do that. :) The only thing I can consider is that we check to see if any illegal canvassing was done. If someone responds on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany (or elsewhere) to such a posting, saying something like "(Bleep) the (bleeping) (bleeps)," although maybe a bit more specifically, and subsequently expresses a corresponding opinion on the swastika discussion page, that opinion might be reasonably overlooked. I have seen similar things take place in XfD's, when the closing admin effectively discounted certain opinions. Granted that only happened when all the members of a project proposed for deletion said "keep", but all other parties said "delete," and even then I only remember it once. Alternately, and I really don't like saying this :), if there is the appearance and reasonable suspicion of such wrongdoing taking place, maybe suspend the decision and start the process over again a month or two later, probably in the same venue. That last option would only be used in extreme cases, like, for instance, if we were to see all the members of the German mysticism or Judaism projects all express a similar opinion, and few others even take part, despite no visible canvassing, then maybe we would be justified in thinking something happened somewhere that we can't verify. Badbilltucker 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That goes completely against AGF though, and I can't support this proposal if we're going to be discounting the thoughts of some editors or groups of editors for no substantiated reason other than "appearance and reasonable suspicion". Even if all of the members of one project support or oppose a course of action that isn't a good reason to discount them all - their opinions may be similar, but everyone on wikipedia is still an individual with a valid contribution to make. If that's what's going to happen I'd much rather see this go to a standard RfC. Dbratton 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Upon reflection I'm concerned that any effort like this to determine or validate the motives, (or worse, the ethnicity or religious affiliation) of respondents is reinforcing very bad faith behavior. I recommend that we consciously reject any process or potential course of action that would create or reinforce 'Hindus v. Jews v. Nazis v. Unaffiliated' barriers between editors. Such 'fencing off' of ideological territory is absolutely the worst thing that could happen for all concerned. We should identify solutions aimed at those interested in resolving this ongoing issue amicably, within due WP process. In my view, to ensure dispassion it should remain a straightforward question of whether to place the image on the welcome template, given WP policy regarding images, templates, projects, 'welcomes', and template-space content - and any other policies the involved parties feel are relevant. The more I think about it, the inflammatory nature of some of these topics leads me to ask whether mediation or an actual RfC may be appropriate after all. Just wondering whether the process may help us avoid acrimony. Note that I'm not calling for it, but those thoughts did just occur to me after some reflection. I'm still quite willing to entertain Noble's suggestion if, as Priyanath said, we can all avoid breaking trust between the different adherents. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some transparency in this proposal - we can look to see if someone who posted comments on the proposed comment page actually received the template on their talk page, and in what context. However, this great idea will depend on trust between those who are adherents of the different points-of-view here. If that can't start to happen, then an RfC is the obvious next step. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are a few problems. I'm not sure whether both sides of the debate should answer as we already know the Hindu side would be something like "it's a religious symbol, respect that" or something which we have already said above. I'm personally more interested to see how many people are offended by it and their feelings, however POV or biased or incorrect they may be, we can analyse their statements. Also we should check whether they received it on their talk page or not, otherwise people will comment-stack using friends/socks/WikiProject call to attention or something. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I indicated that the more extreme measures I proposed were only intended to be used in the event there was a pre-existing appearance of unusual response. It does not violate good faith to wonder why, for instance, a number of Nazi symphathazisers and/or Jewish sympathizers would suddenly become interested in Hinduism, and it would only be in those extreme situations that the extreme measures I indicated would ever be enacted. One can still assume good faith from people who are brought here by extraordinary, possibly unacceptable means. However, if and only if such means are employed, it is reasonable to question whether the results were scewed by such unacceptable means, by possibly bringing in a number of editors acting in good faith who would never have become aware of it were unacceptable means not taken to draw their attention to the discussion. Badbilltucker 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request that editors avoid referring to the positions here as "the Hindu side" and the like. Even if all Hindus held the same position on this matter, (they don't), religious association shouldn't be a consideration. --BostonMA ^talk 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If that was addressed to me, my apologies. I was only trying to point out some of the more extreme, possibly objectionable possibilities, not implying that those "positions" I referred to were not potentially held by a significant number, possibly even the majority, of others as well. And I acknowledge I should have used a stronger word than "Jewish", maybe "Zionist" or some other word would be closer to my meaning. Sorry, I've had a cold for three days and the old brain's only really going at half-speed lately. Badbilltucker 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was made as a general comment, and was addressed to all editors. My comment was prompted by Nobleeagle's comment above "we already know the Hindu side would be something like...". However, I don't wish to single out Nobleeagle as being especially guilty in this regard, just stating that fact that I was prompted by that comment. However, if you have been guilty in other comments, apology accepted. --BostonMA ^talk 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On the same note, I don't think there is a "Zionist" side either. From what I have been able to observe, editors who have identified themselves as Zionists have taken a variety of positions. --BostonMA ^talk 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for that, although I believe few Hindus would feel offence at the Swastika, the use of "Hindu side" was wrong as their views on this topic varies and non-Hindus often support the idea of keeping the Swastika. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After finally getting my head together from the cold I've had the past week or so (insert joke here), it occurs to me that there might be a better way of coming to a decision regarding the greeting template. Basically, the template is basically being used as an advertisement for the project. On that basis, I believe that the best approach might be to treat it like any other advertisement, and engage in market research. It would certainly be possible to alter the banner template in such a way as to add a second, short-term, template below it indicating that opinions are being gathered on this subject. Presumably, only those people interested in such articles, and possibly Hinduism, would see them, and this would help to limit the responses to what is effectively the target audience. Then, in typical market research fashion, have a serious of questions on the linked-to page asking the respondents their opinions on the image, the banner itself, their edit history, whatever, and then have the members of the project use this information to decide the content of the banner. I do think that the final decision would best be handled only by the active members of the project, as it is basically their advertising tool. Personally, I regret to say that my own activity as an editing member of this project has been rather embarrasingly little, and on that basis am recusing myself from participating in the final decision. However, I would be more than willing to help design the questionnaire (if it is decided to use one) to help gather the information for the decision. Badbilltucker 14:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to announce the comment page at WP:RFC/REL since it's basically an RFC. Note: I'm not Hindu and only happened to come across the template because I was clicking around some Hindu-related articles. I was taken aback by the swastika and found my way here. I'm mostly ok with the current version of the template but would like to ask that "or Om" be restored to the explanation of Aum (I didn't know they were the same thing, and "Om" explained Aum to me in one syllable). A little more delicately I wonder if some reference to the nazi symbol be restored, maybe with different wording than my original version. Perhaps something like "This 3000-year-old symbol of Hindu spirituality should never be confused with the version appropriated by political movements of the WW2 era". 67.117.130.181 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with differentiating the Nazi swastika and the Dharmic swastika is that there is no difference. Hitler appropriated the swastika in some sort of odd belief that it was a symbol of the Aryans, a name he mistakenly (I think) gave the Indo-Europeans. Unfortunately, in the Western world, many people are apparently unaware of the prior history of the swastika, while some others are aware but have difficulties with it anyway, and that is what provoked this discussion. Badbilltucker 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the idea is to differentiate the usage. There ought to be some wording possible that's not apologetic and doesn't scold and is concise and accurate, all at the same time. I'm just having trouble finding it. How about "The swastika's usage in Hindu spirituality should never be confused with its political usage from the WW2 era."? 67.117.130.181 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is confused. Very easily. On account of being the same symbol~ Grace Note 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything. it should go back to the way it was.--D-Boy 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? We can't assume that people in the West know about the pre-Nazi usage of the Swastika as was the case with IZAK. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone in the West is an idiot. Even in the public school we're taught that hilter corrupted the swastika. many of us were taught where it came from. You have the word Hindu there. it's not a nazi recruitment. You want to change it? go ahead. but it'll just lead to more censorship and we'll never be able to reclaim our symbol in the real world for another 50 years. it's just more people telling us what to do. It's just like the change in the indian template. As for IZAK, i don't want to comment....--D-Boy 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Only option B was censoring. Option A was about educating those who are the "idiots," which you said is not everyone (watch your langauge, btw please read WP:CIVIL) and option C was about simple logic, a Swastika doesn't serve any purpose on the template and neither does the Aum so they should be removed. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I already stated my stance. Cave if you want.--D-Boy 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I had the honour of being first to comment on the project page. That you are even bickering over this astonishes me. Unfortunately, the swastika is widely recognised as a symbol of great evil and not widely at all recognised as a holy symbol of Hinduism. It is very likely to cause gross offence. Why choose a symbol that does that? It's hideously confrontational and insensitive to do so. I am offended at the crassness involved in using it as your "welcome" to Hinduism.

And D-Boy, you don't have to be an "idiot" not to know about the swastika. It is a prominent feature of Western culture, closely associated with the Nazis, and is still used to represent that association. Regardless of its use in India, that remains true. You can't wish it away simply by aggressively reappropriating it. Grace Note 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Western culture! finland still uses the swastika. Latvia still uses the swastika. Celtcs used. Romans used. Scandanvians used it. Last time I checked, these countries are western countries. You do realize that wikipedia is not just western don't you. Also, I find it offensive that you call such a symbol a great evil. Do i call the cross evil even though there were iquistions? Do I find the arabic and cresent evil even though they raped and pillaged from iran to afghanistan? Both though symbols stand for organizations that killed more than the nazis did over the course of 2000 years. And we're not NAZIS!--D-Boy 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We can keep discussing how this works, but I say we revisit the topic on the 20th of February to determine final consensus. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lets wait and analyse the feedback. Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No conlusions have been reached for the other non-welcome templates. User:Amoruso thought that consensus has been reached for the other templates to remove the Swastik which I don't see anywhere. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Amoruso claimed to think 'consensus had been reached' - he or she probably viewed the reasons provided and on the face of it thought it a good idea. I guess he didn't imagine there would be such vehement opposition to replacing the swastika (a controversial symbol for many) with the Aum (a more important and non-controversial symbol). Sure seems logical enough on the face of it, without succumbing to religious pride and defensive fervor. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that for all the discussion above there still is no consensus on even what tactics to take to try to determine consensus. On that basis, I am proposing the question immediately below. Badbilltucker 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So, What Do We Do?

In the belief that what is being considered here is possibly taking some degree of action, what action do we want to take?

• A) Use the page already set up for gathering opinions
• B) Ask a few specific questions of all respondents on a "marketing questionnaire", which would also probably allow for individual specific comments
• C) something else
• D) Nothing?

We would have to know how if at all we are going to proceed to know what specific actions to take. And I do hope that any responses below do directly address the question. Badbilltucker 15:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We leave the Hindu swastika there. There's no justification for removing it other than, in some people's ignorance, they might be offended. Wikilinking it to swastika is the absolute limit to how much "play" we should be giving to this line of objection.

What pray tell, are we to do when the Jains make a template?

Oh, censor that too...sigh <<-armon->> 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we would leave the Jainism banner to the Jainism project, as it is a completely separate entity. And, in this case, the function of the banner is basically advertising the project, so in this instance it would make sense to know if the ad does potentially "turn off" some potential members. Of course, some potential members might be more "turned on" by the presence of the swastika, so we'd want to know what if any numbers they exist in as well. Badbilltucker 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, it isn't going to make a speck of difference. Anyone with even the most minimal knowledge of the subject knows about the symbols use in Dharmic religions. As for Jainism being a different topic, same guy censoring there on the same pretext. <<-armon->> 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I lean toward having a listed RfC. That seems to be the generally recognized way to resolve this sort of issue. --BostonMA ^talk 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BostonMA above. The question would then be would we be requesting general comments, like "keep it," "get rid of it", etc., or would we want to get some more specific answers as well? These might include have you ever contributed to Hinduism articles, how often, do you have any preconceptions regarding the swastika, blah blah blah. I would favor the second option, as it gives the people making the decision more to work with. Badbilltucker 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that as well. <<-armon->> 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we could also post a msg on WP:ANI -the arguments aginst the symbols are sooo bad, that this looks to me to have become a clear violation of WP:POINT. <<-armon->> 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hindus opposing EU swastika ban Some of us grew some balls! :-D--D-Boy 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it this case (and likely the EU case as well) it's not even the same symbol it's only similar -like a cross vs. an X. If editors here wanted to use the Nazi version, it would cause confusion and I'd see the objectors' point. As it stands now, I don't see any valid reason to suppress a different symbol.

Ideally, the reaction should have gone like this:

WTF! That looks Nazi!

(clicks and reads reads the facts)

Oh, OK, no problem. I understand now...freaked me out there for a second...

I think it's sad and disruptive that it hasn't. <<-armon->> 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, do you think that the reaction would be like this:

OMG, OMG! What a pretty Swastika. Ooh, What a pretty Aum!

The purpose of the welcome template is to bring new user into the project!

And of course, of course, I wouldn't have joined unless those pretty pictures were on the welcome template

I don't worry about improving Hinduism articles, I like seeing pretty pictures on templates, which waste precious bytes off the Wikimedia servers

Removing the Swastika and Aum isn't censoring if there is no purpose for the images to be there in the first place. And why do you assume that everybody knows about the use of Swastikas in Dharmic religions. Do you think that anyone who knows about Hitler's swastika automatically knows about its good uses. And sometimes their design become quite close to each other. The Dharmic Swastiks can face anti-clock or clockwise. Neo-Nazi Swastikas don't need to have the 45 degree shift with red background and black colour. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What do we do? We drop the issue. It's a resounding no consensus, let's just get on with our lives. --tjstrf talk 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it.--D-Boy 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the reaction isn't:

Oooh, this looks like Hitler's swastika, only it's red instead of black, and it's straight instead of titled, and it's got dots, and it doesn't have a circle around it, and the wikilink goes to HinduSwastika. So it isn't Hitler's swastika. What a nice looking template. And it's very courageous of the Hindu editors to try and preserve their religious symbol after Hitler stuffed it up.

Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish it was, but as IZAK and others have shown, there are many people in the West who have comprehensive knowledge of the Holocaust but know absolutely nothing about Hinduism. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have listed some of what I think might be the questions to be asked in the RfC below. Please feel free to add to them and/or revise them, remembering we don't want it to be too long of a list. I know the phrasing will need work, by the way. Badbilltucker 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about that generalization about people from the West. We are taught where the swastika came from. No knowledge about is POV. IZAK was a rarity who was ignorant of the symbol.--D-Boy 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC questions

• 1) Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)
• 2) How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)
• 3) If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)
• 4) Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically)
• 5) If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)
• 6) Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically)
• 7) What led you to this page.
• 8) Feel free to add any additional comments here:

I know that the above set of questions need work. Please feel free to modify them to clarify as you wish. Badbilltucker 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They are good, I'll add them + have "what led you to this page". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika page is now linked to for a request for comment, so more responses should be expected soon. Badbilltucker 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's the link to the RfC itself: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone favor making an addition to the project banner to call the attention of interested editors to this discussion? I could add a secondary notice "banner" to the page, and then remove it again at the end of the discussion, to call interested parties' attention to the discussion. Badbilltucker 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad Banner

Someone changed a Heading to read "YUR MOM SUCKS A BIG ONE" I would fix it, but am only experienced at reading here not changing anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.164.101 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Where is it? It is called Vandalism on Wikipedia. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Article tagged as needing expert attention

Sai Baba of Shirdi has been tagged as requiring expert attention. Any such assistance in improving this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to notify Hinduism contributors. The best page is WT:HNB. Cheers Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Omnipotence article

On wikipedia there is an article on Omnipotence. I have been trying to put in aspects of other religions into this article, since the article is now mostly (completely) western and christian oriented. As I recall Shiva is seen as omnipotent by Shaivism, Vishnu in Vaishnavism (read this in the Gita) and Shakti in Shaktism. I have to little knowledge on this to place any accurate references, hence my callling here, to also give this aricle an eastern point of view. Teardrop onthefire 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to notify Hinduism contributors. The best page is WT:HNB. Cheers Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Saints vs Gurus

Can somebody clarify the criteria for inclusion in these categories? I'm confused. --Nemonoman 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Hindu saints]] 
[[Category:Hindu gurus]]

What happened to the comments inserted here between 19 and 26 January?--Nemonoman 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hindu Links

How's this? I tried to reduce the amount the template takes up on the screen. Comments are welcome. Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Should I be bold? (Thanks for your comment!) S.D. ¿п? § 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I favor boldness in almost every instance, you need to be aware that the issue has been contentious and some editors have engaged in some pretty appalling behavior regarding this issue. Before you make the edit, be prepared to be serially reverted and perhaps even attacked as a 'Jew', a 'Censor', an 'Outsider', 'Politically correct', etc. However, I believe your edit is an improvement and I encourage you to do what you feel improves the template. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I am trying to solve a few problems with this change:

1. Less images: 1 instead of 4
2. No swastika, since it raises conflicts between users and this is just a welcome-type template
3. Less words
4. Brings in the red Aum symbol

Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

TO be honest...I like it. And I was in support of keeping the Swastika as it seemed like censoring to remove it from the original. But this is short and to the point, we should remember this is a welcome template. It shouldn't be too large, I Support the new style. Simple and to the point, very nice. ~ Arjun 00:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of swastikas, it's great. --tjstrf talk 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks better, I support the new style. A swastika could be put in on the left of the header, so the new style can be completely unrelated to the swastika discussion which is still undergoing RFC. The red Aum is better than the black Aum. By the way Ryan, I don't think many appreciate the comment you made about Before you make the edit, be prepared to be serially reverted and perhaps even attacked as a 'Jew', a 'Censor', an 'Outsider', 'Politically correct', etc.. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you or anyone else don't appreciate the comment, but I hope it's clear that what I wrote wasn't directed at - or meant to represent - any specific individuals. We're all able to be held accountable for our own behavior and Sd asked my opinion as to whether to perform the edit - so I relayed my own personal experience in the form of brief advice - again, my apologies if anyone took my description of my own experience personally. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the image per your comment. Cheers! S.D. ¿п? § 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay but now we are going to have to add the little note at the bottom *sigh*, but I think that it might be a good idea to put in a show/hide box. Suggestions? ~ Arjun 00:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I would consider this version a minor improvement at best. It's not a resolution of the open issue given the '2nd problem' Sd sought to solve. Obviously, I recommend going back to the version Sd posted that addressed all 4 'problems'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to Hindu symbols for anyone who is interested. Comments? S.D. ¿п? § 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A link doesn't address the issue, it's just a link. A welcome template isn't the place to provoke a user to follow a link to understand a symbol. Your first version (without the swastika) addressed all four issues. This one is a mere compaction of the prior version. I recommend you revert back to your first version from this latest one, "since it raises conflicts between users and this is just a welcome-type template". -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the image to a different spot (this way, the header looks balanced, aesthetically speaking). Comments? S.D. ¿п? § 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the new version (i.e. with no swastika.) I agree with Ryan below that the current version is aesthetically well done. --BostonMA ^talk 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Very pretty version, this one with the vertically centered, larger 'aum'. Nice sense of composition! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! S.D. ¿п? § 02:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, in fact I think that it looks so good that all the editors from both sides are in harmony with the new template. Well I know that I am. ~ Arjun 02:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, too. However, I'm not sure that I'm from one of the sides, so perhaps my opinion doesn't count ;) —Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indenting) If there is to be an image on the template, I prefer the colour to match the heading background, which is orange. It will not be as much of a distraction. If not, I'll like it with no image like This. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the red Aum to a saffron one. Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm...no swastika...a pity.--D-Boy 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pity? 'Twas pity that stayed Bilbo's hand..." -- Gandalf (-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

If no-one opposes this new version then the discussion is over and there will be no Swastika on the welcome template. The Swastika RFC has little meaning left, especially since there is no link directing people receiving the template to the discussion. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let the Hinduism Project members know, there is no requirement that we use the standard invitation message. Just as many people create their own welcome templates on their user sub-pages, you can create your own. I will probably create my own with no images and a couple of other differences. Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll make one with a huge swastika!--D-Boy 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal RFC

I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)