Talk:Ayyavazhi/Archive 1

message: On the festival articles, could you guys also write the Western days of celebration? (its written 19 Masi) but most people are not familiar with the tamil calendar so the western dates would be appreciated.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REQUEST 

message: delete Ayyavazhi-->move content to Ayyavazhi mythology, then cleanup Stevenwmccrary58 17:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: While the proposed merge is being discussed (at Ayyavazhi mythology), could no-one unilaterally remove the notice?  My own view is that the merge is probably not a good idea, but tthe issue should be properly discussed before any one person removes the notices and closes the issue. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you, the person who added it, is happy, I have no objection. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: The summary states: "It is considered by some to be an offshoot of Hinduism."  Is there anyone who doesn't so consider it? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism 

message: This article seems pretty well cleaned up except for the "It may be concluded" paragraph.  That one loses me entirely - what context? LA RoeDoe 14:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy editing 

message: Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon 08:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy editing 

message: Anyone know what an "LMS Report" is? (see Shamanism section of this article).Her Pegship 23:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It indicates The report of the Directors to the General body meeting of 'The Missionary Society' usually called ' The London Missionary Society  ' -	Vaikunda &  Raja
Thanks! I added a link. Her Pegship 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of term 

message: The section titled 'New religious phenomenon is a blatant attempt to insert original research. I have removed it. I have given the paragraph below:
It may be concluded that Ayyavazhi emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon. Amidst the various traditions — the sanskritic Hinduism, the newly-introduced Christianity, the not-so-prominent Islam, and the ubiquitous folk forms of worship — Ayyavazhi was developing as a distinctively alternative religio-cultural form in South India, its place of origin. This fact had been recognized by the followers of Ayyavazhi.
They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature, "Ayya Vazhi" ("the path or way of Ayya") and thereby confirmed its new identity. They considered it, on the one hand, as ghee churned out of the existing religious traditions and, on the other, as a new phenomenon that had come to replace the old traditions. They believed, on the one hand, that Vaikundar had 'unified' all the existing deities unto himself and, on the other, that the essence of the old traditions had gone awry with the advent of Vaikundar. They placed their religion within the existing traditions and yet perceived it to be different from them. The distinguishing aspect of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen against the background of the sanskritic tradition whose pre-eminence was upheld by the State. That Ayyavazhi had emerged differently against this religious tradition is a pointer to its distinct singularity. The emergence of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen also against the presence of the British in India [70]. From a sociological perspective, reform movements in general were patronised by the British in the nineteenth century Thiruvithankur. But Ayyavazhi was never patronized by the British; it arose and stabilized without their support. In one sense, it was anti-establishment, presenting itself to be new, both in terms of a difference and in terms of a synthetic character. It called itself new, as well as a medley of the extant traditions [71].
Can someone tell me why this should be included in the article?
Parthi 07:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean you have copied the passages directly from the book? if so do you have permission to do so? Normally published books are copyrighted. You cannot insert passages without permission. My question was what does this passage mean and why should it be in a encyclopaedic article?  - Parthi 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: The passage:
::It may be concluded that Ayyavazhi emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon. Amidst the various traditions — the sanskritic Hinduism, the newly-introduced Christianity, the not-so-prominent Islam, and the ubiquitous folk forms of worship — Ayyavazhi was developing as a distinctively alternative religio-cultural form in South India, its place of origin. This fact had been recognized by the followers of Ayyavazhi.
::They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature, "Ayya Vazhi" ("the path or way of Ayya") and thereby confirmed its new identity. They considered it, on the one hand, as ghee churned out of the existing religious traditions and, on the other, as a new phenomenon that had come to replace the old traditions. They believed, on the one hand, that Vaikundar had 'unified' all the existing deities unto himself and, on the other, that the essence of the old traditions had gone awry with the advent of Vaikundar. They placed their religion within the existing traditions and yet perceived it to be different from them. The distinguishing aspect of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen against the background of the sanskritic tradition whose pre-eminence was upheld by the State. That Ayyavazhi had emerged differently against this religious tradition is a pointer to its distinct singularity. The emergence of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen also against the presence of the British in India [70]. From a sociological perspective, reform movements in general were patronised by the British in the nineteenth century Thiruvithankur. But Ayyavazhi was never patronized by the British; it arose and stabilized without their support. In one sense, it was anti-establishment, presenting itself to be new, both in terms of a difference and in terms of a synthetic character. It called itself new, as well as a medley of the extant traditions [71].
is possibly copied verbataim from the source Patrick, G, Religion in the Subaltern Agency.
Parthi 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Friend, What do you want? In this same article you ask to cite at more than 70 places. I was made to cite each and every line. I don't know why? Do every articles in WP was censored in such a way? Then even after citing you said that this was a balant attempt to insert original reserch. I said I am ready to cite every line. Then said that Vaikundar utilises the superstitious nature of people to say himself god in the name of controversy. Now this. Even now I am telling, I am ready to cite each and every line of that section. But not a copy write. More over as per your policy in citation, Only copy writes may be suitable to wikipedia. Frankly telling I am not here to bite any one . Please understand - Vaikunda Raja 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also Vaikundar was not the foundar, because he did not founded Ayyavazhi. If needed it can be noted "Ayyavazhi is a religion centered on the life and teaching of Vaikundar" .More over you've not replied for my suggestions.If so I will rewrite the section Controversy. - Vaikunda Raja 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I  think what Parthi  asked above is whether the quoted paragraphs are direct copies from the book, which would make them copyright violations. Please comment on that rather than replying something completely different. Thanks. --Ragib 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspicions of plagerism and copyvio were raised because of the difference in the style of these paragraphs compared to the rest of the article. I am also of the opinion that the "It may be concluded..." paragraph does not read encyclpaedic. Concluded by whom? If you are deducing something, then WP is not the place for it. See WP:NOR. Under these circumstances, I have reverted your reverts as I feel that this passage does not add any value to this article. - Parthi 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyright violation

message: ::Jain, Buddha, Shikh are from Hindu but differ in many ways and hence separate religions whereas Ayyavazhi is only caste of Hindu.
:::vkvora 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayyavazhi and other Castes in Hinduism 

message: Hello,
I'm from the French wikipedia. I wrote some articles about the religion Ayyavazhi, because there was nothing about it in French. But I really am clueless about Hinduism (mythology,...) and all its related beliefs (like Ayyavazhi), so I had to translate parts of the english articles. I had help (in english) from someone who knows quite well this religion, but even then I can not be sure I did not make any errors. So, if someone can understand french well enough, could he (or she ;) ) check my articles and tell me if I wrote stupid things, wrong things,...? It would really help me!
The articles : 
*:fr:Ayyavazhi
*:fr:Ayya Vaikundar
*Check the category :fr:Catégorie:Ayyavazhi (if I add an article)
My talk page (french wikipedia) (you can write in English on it)
Thanks a lot!!
Chtit draco 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayyavazhi on the french wikipedia 

message: Do practitioners of this faith count as Hindus or not? It would be helpful for me to know, so that I can determine whether the Religion project banner or Hinduism project banner should be placed on the articles relating to it. Badbilltucker 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The honest answer is that some followers of Ayyavazhi consider themselves to be Hindu and others consider it to be a separate religion.  I have been unable to determine whether there is a majority one way or the other.  However, judging from websites, which are admittedly a very biased sample in this case, the consensus seems to be that websites which represent themselves as Ayyavazhi are Hindu.  Of course, you will no doubt hear an opposing view which states that these websites are not "real" Ayyavazhi.  Hope that helps to confuse matters ;-)  --BostonMA talk 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider personal websites than University papers as per the WP rules. Ayyavazhi is seperate as cited from valid, third-party sources. 
Also why the section History of Ayyavazhi is tagged NPOV? See each and every lines are cited there. - Paul 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu or not? 

message: I removed words which stated that Indian government has not officially recognized Ayyavazhi. Indian government does not undertake any role to recognize religions. This article is well written. It can be considered for GA class.--Indianstar 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official recognition by Indian Government 

message: Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment