Talk:Hinduism/Archive 21

message: I have reverted these recent edits which were (1) unnecessary details and repetitions  for this already lengthy article, (2) unsourced and (3) partially OR and POV.
Incidentally  (and his prior accounts , , ,  etc.) has already been told about wikipedia's policies WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS etc. See discussions on Talk:Surya Siddhanta, and Talk:Vedanga Jyotisha in particular. Abecedare 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Vinay Jha]]'s edits 

message: I just made an edit to the definition of the term deva and wanted to upgrade the sourcing to MW related to the Note, but in doing so ran into the problem of named references, which make maintenance of the article difficult.  In this case, glossing the sourcing to MW on the word deva will require disconnecting that note from the general vague MW name and putting in a more specific note.  Because disconnecting this note in this way raises the general issue of use of named notes, I would like to draw attention to this issue here.  Some people like them, others do not.  However there seems to be no disagreement that use of named notes can produce collateral damage in multiple places in an article if one instance of them is edited.  They also result in non-sequential numbering of Notes, which makes it difficult to work backward from the Notes section to locate all uses of a particular source without putting the text of the article into a word processor.  For these reasons, rather than using a named note, in this particular instance I will use a gloss plus a page citation, making the note unique.  Any comments on this issue? Buddhipriya 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of named references 

message: In the lead: Other countries with large Hindu populations include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, Fiji, Suriname, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.
"Large Hindu populations" is very subjective, something that can be twisted around the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I suggest we create an official cut-off, so the number of countries can be limited. A particular number (eg.10 million) for countries with large populations where Hinduism is a minority and a particular percentage (>50%) for nations (with smaller populations) where Hinduism is the majority. Note that this paragraph will most likely be moved to a future "Demographics" section when we get the time. GizzaDiscuss © 02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think the article needs a demographics section eventually, where this information will be (somewhat) expanded upon; so I am not concerned about fiddling with this list in the lead at present. Perhaps, in the meantime, we can search for and list references for demographics information here on the talk page. I guess we will need statistics for worldwide Hindu population and the population in several countries; we can also mention growth rate if we can get that number. Anything else that would be useful/available ? Abecedare 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The only country where Hinduism is official relgion is Nepal, and yes, that should be mentioned in the Demographics section. General population of Hindus, growth rate and percentages are all needed. Btw to let everyone know why I was prompted to discuss this, an anon recently added the Philippines, a country which I think would have a low number, percentage and growth rate of Hindus compared to other countries. GizzaDiscuss © 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mauritius, Nepal, and India have Hindu majorities. The only Hindu country is Nepal. Countries to be listed should be at least 10% Hindu, or have over 5 million. I think that may be a good proposal.Bakaman 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you in that historically, it is the Indian subcontinent that was Hindu. However, the Demographics section will mainly be referring to modern nations. We can perhaps have one sentence on history, where before the partition, Hindus were spread all over the subcontinent. GizzaDiscuss © 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the CIA Factbook would be a reliable source for populatation statistics.  Regarding Adherents.com the sourcing looks dubious, but by population numbers (not percentages) the USA ranks 8 in number of Hindus. Buddhipriya 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu countries 

message: Please add any sources you find  to the following list:
* Hindu population in various countries Is this source considered reliable ? Abecedare
* Nepali constitution's position on Hinduism Quote: "Nepal is a multiethnic, multilingual, democratic, independent, indivisible, sovereign, Hindu and Constitutional Monarchical Kingdom." Abecedare
* Recent protests about Hinduism's role in Nepal
* Growth rate of Hindu population in India We can look up the GOI census for same data, since that will be a better source to cite. Abecedare
:Perhaps the CIA Factbook would be a reliable source for populatation statistics.  Regarding Adherents.com the sourcing looks dubious, but by population numbers (not percentages) the USA ranks 8 in number of Hindus. Buddhipriya 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for the (future) Demographics section 

message: The last paragraph of the Scriptures and theology section. In contrast to the scriptural canons of some religions, the Hindu scriptural canon is not closed in the sense that there is little theological quarrel between Hindu denominations although these denominations may view God and their notions in a different form or sense. The first sentence is making two distinct point that weakly related to each other: 1) Scriptural canon not closed 2) Little conflict between denominations. Before the section was compressed, these points at least had separate sentences if not separate paragraphs. They may have been in different sections. I suspect the citation only sources the second point in the sentence. Someone can check that.
According to memory, the point mentioned previously was that more Hindu scriptures can still be created because Hindus seek to find the truth in new ways, or something along those lines. It wasn't to do with different sects getting along with each other. GizzaDiscuss © 06:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical fallacy 

message: Continuing from Talk:Hinduism/Archive_18#Boon and Hindu.
I'll leave it to others to decide how to deal with boons (since I know little about this). But it would be nice if boon in an article such as Arjuna could at least be linked to a section of an article, however small. --Chriswaterguy talk 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be possible after we compress the article further to have space for a sentence or two on boons. Considering this article has to follow WP:SS, which section do you suggest putting that sentence in? GizzaDiscuss © 07:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boons 

message: Should there be a comma in the first sentence somewhere? --66.169.9.118 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the first sentence, "Hinduism (known as Hindū Dharma in modern Indian languages) is a religious tradition that originated in the Indian subcontinent." It seems fine to me. Perhaps you are unaware that the information parentheses can be omitted when examining the flow of the sentence. While I can't see where a comma is needed, I'm glad to see you looking into the standard of writing of this article. In terms of quantity, it is almost complete with only a few missing sections and is generally well sourced. The quality of the prose is what I see as the biggest concern in the article especially since it is full of technical Hindu terminology. GizzaDiscuss © 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request comma 

message: Yama  is enumerated as first of the eight parts (angas) of Yoga in Yogasutra-2.29 ; therefore, definitions of these eight parts, including Yama, of Yoga logically occur in YS-2.29 in commentaries. Five types of Yamas ( in plural) are discussed in the next sutra whose commentaries define these five parts such as Ahimsa, Satya, etc there (YS-2.30).  I corrected the citation in my last edit, and then I corrected the number of correct sutra in my next edit (17 Aug,2007). A term may occur many times in a text, but we should cite the definition from where that term has been properly defined by reliable commentators. This important thing was missed by DAB because he does not read the sources in detail and relies upon shortcuts. Instead, he called me silly (cf. Edit summary). By learning case or gender one cannot become a scholar, good editing requires thorough education, but abusing needs no education ! Some editors do not allow improvement of Wiki articles. Cf.WP:CIVILITY. -Vinay Jha 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the context is this edit, where Vinay still thought that " is wrong." --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the edit, Vinay. Your reason could have been much better summarized as, "Have changed reference from YS 30 to YS 29 since concept is first discussed in that sutra.~~~~" Cheers. Abecedare 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I could not make my point clear. I did not change the reference because YS.2.29 occurred before YS.2.30, but because commentators have described Yama in detail  in the comments following YS.2.29. and not in comments following YS.2.30. I have still not learnt all editing tips and tricks because DAB unnecessarily wastes my time over trifles (charges, clarifications, abuses, etc). I have again received threats and abuses in Talk:Rgveda, although the discussion had ended. -Vinay Jha 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Yama 

message: I gave the article a read-over specifically with regard to sourcing, and noticed some things which may be areas for improvement.  
1) Quite a few of the notes are of the type: "Jones (1982)" which is so general that verification of the statements is difficult.  At a minimum I think we should try to upgrade these sources to include page numbers.  
2) Some Notes such as #83 ("arcye viṣṇau śīlā-dhīr. . . narakī saḥ") do not provide any edition or versification detail at all, making these citations dubious, particularly since they are quotations from Puranic or scriptural sources with no intervening academic review, thus suggesting that they are WP:OR.  Other examples of direct quotation of scripture such as #45 "'My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.' (Bhaktivedanta 1997, ch. 11.54)" include adequate sourcing, but still may involve significant WP:POV issues because while they may reflect the views of a particular teacher, they may or may not be generally true.  
3) Some of the Notes, e.g., (#69 "Rigveda is not only the oldest among the vedas, but is one of the earliest Indo-European texts." contain only unsourced statements which themselves are subject to challenge.  Another example is the very first note, #1: "Hindu Dharma" in modern Indian languages such as Hindi, Bengali and other contemporary Indo-Aryan languages, as well as in several Dravidian tongues including Tamil and Kannada."  Perhaps true, but who said so?  
4) There is some overreliance on web sites to source things, rather than using stronger academic sources, e.g. #70, "Hinduwebsite.com explaining the yajnas. Retrieved on 2007-06-25."  I think we should move toward upgrading such web links with more solid academic sourcing.  Some of the sources clearly fail to meet the tests for WP:EL and WP:RS, such as #27: "Manifold Mahadevas Nature Spirits. Blessingsconucopia.com. Maureen Grace Burns, Blessings Cornucopia. Retrieved on 2007-06-25."  These sorts of dubious web sites should be expunged from the article immediately if they fail to meet the tests for inclusion of such links
5.  Some of the sourcing is from dubious authorities that are controversial, such as David Frawley.  If vague uses of Frawley to source things as in #7: "Frawley 2001" were phased out in favor of stronger sources that are less open to debate, the article would have more credibility. 
A more general issue is that in reading over the article closely I realized that the mental model is that Hinduism is one entity and thus is described over and over using singular verb forms ("it is...") rather than being viewed as a composite entity or collection of social and religious traditions.  Consider the multifactorial approach of Michaels, 2004, pp. 21, who says "Examined closely, Hinduism consists of three Hindu religions and four forms of Hindu religiosity, which can occur in all Hindu religions. (For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term Hinduism from now on for the totality of the Hindu religions and their religious forms.)"  Michaels analysis permits the segmentation of Hindu beliefs and practices in ways that clearly differentiate between things like Brahmanic-Sanskritic Hinduism, folk religions, and recently-founded religious sects.  I feel that the discussion we recently had regarding whether Hinduism is a religion was one helpful dialog on this larger issue.  The connection to sourcing is that many of the sources are from specific sectarian viewpoints, and may in some cases be overgeneralizing.  
It is true that Hinduism is "multifactorial" as Michaels says. However, the essential thing to remember is who the audience is for this article: generally the audience will be people who don't know anything whatsoever about Hinduism and want a quick sketch. Michaels' analysis is great for a publication meant primarily for scholars or those with a special interest in Hinduism, but it is too much for those who want to learn one or two things in 10 minutes. HeBhagawan 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues related to sourcing 

message: References: Notes and citations section; change in reference and notes temporarily ceased; WP:FOOT says I am not doing wrong; Separate Notes and Citation sections
Opinion is sought from regular editors of the article regarding the splitting of Notes and references section. This is a short gist of the discussions going on in the above mentioned talk links:
Having a separate "Notes" (for explanatory remarks) and "Citations" (for direct citations), although permitted, is relatively rare in Wikipedia, and also in academic journals. The main rationale behind doing this is to distinguish a series of explanatory remarks from the series of citations (please see Rabindranath Tagore, Demosthenes for examples). 
This sandbox gives a glimpse of how the article would look if we split the sections (the sandbox is under work, so may not be perfect). This link shows how the article looks with combined section. This may give an idea how it looked when I started working on references. I converted many references to Harvard format, apart from splitting the sections.
Opinion for regular editors are sought regarding the application of splitting of two section for this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I still think that splitting them into two sections is a bad idea for reasons given in prior postings.  I mention this again only because a request for comment was posted on my talk page.      I would also like to note that three different referencing issues were involved with this change, all of which should be discussed as separate topics: 1) Use of the dual system, 2) Use of named references, and 3) Use of Harvard reference templates.  I strongly oppose 1 and 2.  While I dislike the Harvard system in general, I can live with the use of some of the simpler Harvard book citation templates so long as they are confined to footnotes, not appearing the main body of the text, and do not use named references for their implementation.  However given the choice I probably would not use them much.  Buddhipriya 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a good idea to split into notes and citations sections. Cygnus_hansa 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking opinion from regular editors on reference pattern 

message: I tried to change law to 'divine(religious) law' in introductory para, but was reverted. Then I linked Dharma, so that many readers might not be misled by the lopsided translation of Dharma as law. But this simple linking was also reverted. Now I am not going to touch that introductory para in Hinduism again ; let dharma be translated as law or as  skin (dermos in Latin, which contains the body, as dharma  contains  life and society ; cf. its root  dhr ). I will not object to anyone translating dharma even as leather  or leather-jacket ;  I have had too much of futile controversies and I do not want to generate new ones. Vinay Jha 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharma  versus  Law 

message: The Union government of India officially admitted in late 2007 that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Ram or the other idols in Ramayana. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Archaeological Survey of India too rejected the claim of the existence of the Ram Sethu bridge in the area where the project was under construction.
A day later, the affidavit was withdrawn under pressure from Hindu fundamentalist parties. However, the State government of Tamil Nadu continue to maintain its official stance and refused to review the project.
Please add the above timely verdict in a separate section called Fact and Fiction. Anwar 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anwar, I fail to see what is so surprising or groundbreaking in the ASI statement, and more importantly its relevance to the Hinduism article. Feel free to summarize the content of the linked article at Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, where it will be pertinent. Cheers. Abecedare 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is neither a news paper nor a central government's propaganda site. Thanks. Gnanapiti 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This "editor" is clearly anti-Hindu. Historicity of Rama.--ॐJesucristo301 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Ram existed ever