Talk:Lingayatism/Archive 1

message: The following material was located at Lingayat survey but did not fit cleanly when I merged to this page.  Please merge it in if you know the subject well enough to do a good job Kcordina  Talk  11:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingayat survey

message: I'd be interested to see an explanation of the variant name Veerashaiva, and the connotations and significance of saying Veerashaiva or Lingayat. QuartierLatin1968  17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I am starting a rewrite of this article.  The article is in very bad shape and lots of random information has just been dumped in it.  For example, before I changed it, the introduction itself took up nearly 3/4th of the article.
Much of the information is encyclopaedic but quite a bit of it is in blatant POV, weasel, peacock domains.  For example there are sentences like,
"Basavanna attempted to rid society of caste distinctions, although these can still be found to a severe degree in  modern Lingayats who pretend to be Lingayats."  !!  and
"It was so much ahead of the generation that our constitution can be seen as based on its simple ideas and widely debated upon."
While sentences above may or may not be true, I am sure that it will be seen as POV on Wikipedia.
So I am tagging the article as "underconstruction".  I have also added some sections that need to be expanded upon.  If anyone has any information please feel free to expand the sections.
I will also try and rearrange the already existing info and also use the info by User:Kcordina that we see here .  If anybody has photographs of Lingayat pilgrimage centers etc., please upload them.  Sarvagnya 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The origin of groupism i.e., caste seems to have started with people trying to refer to themselves as one group. There was no divisions and sub divisions until different people started competing for the same resources and had to organize themselves into groups to improve their chances in competing. 
Lathead 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groupism i.e., Caste origin 

message: This page opens with
"The history of the Lingayat faith goes back to the Basavanna(1134 - 1196 AD)..."
How about: "Lingayatism is .......". I came here to find out what Lingayatism is. I'm sure I can work it out, but how about helping me a little here?
220.233.208.223 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New introduction needed!!!

message: Does anyone know the sacred text of this non-vedic sect? No academic source seems to know, I've checked the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia of Religion 2nd edition, Oxford Referance Online, several Lingayat websites and so forth. The only thing I've come across was a statement that the Vachanas were comparable to the holy bible for the Lingayats. This however cannot be the case, as several holy texts seem to be held in high regard. On the Saiva Siddhanta Church website, which includes an electronic edition of their publication, Dancing With Shiva, a statement is made that the Lingayats derived their religion, and are successors to the Pasupata saivites. This would make perfect sence, given the fact that the Pasupatas are non-Vedic, ie. heterodox. The question on the Lingayat seems open and unanswered, who knows? I sent an email to an adherent from a Lingayat website, he himself did not even know and told me that he forwarded my email to scholars who may be able to answer my question. That was several weeks ago, and thus far I have gotten no responce or correspondance. I also sent an email to the author of the article 'Saivism: Virasaivas' in the Encyclopedia of Religon 2nd edition, one of the contributors, Andre Padoux. Months later, I haven't gotten a reply back.
For further historical evidencesyou can contact Kashi Peeth Jagadagurus
In case you really interested to contact i can provide contact numbers and can try to make arrangements. Hope you can go thru their evidences.
Can find details in : http://www.shaivam.org/virashaivam/index.html
:Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingayat/Virasaiva/Veerashaiva Canon

message: Reading through the phrases I observed text "Lingayat", "Panchapeeta" and "Marulasiddha". To clarify honestly, REAL Marulasiddha never associated himself with any religion, caste, tribe. This saintly person was born to a untouchable couple, adopted by a village head called Maachi Gowda. Marulasiddha real name found to be just Siddha which is still a common in so called untouchable Harijan (that’s the name given by our so called father of nation). Marulasiddha become popular for his magical and hypnotic skills in his early days. This holy man's name is often referred as one of the Panchacharya (though hard to believe how did they accept an untouchable as their one of udbhava murthy) [There is an story floated by Panchapeeta followers that Marulasiddha met Revanasiddha (one of Panchapeeta guru) in hills of Chitradurga while wondering places and gave gurudeeksha. How can a guru who sit 3 feet above others can give a gurudeeksha to an untouchable?] 
Ans: Hey man you are short of knowledge about panchacharyas,  panchacharyas referrring marulasiddha is not only whom you are referring, the marulasiddha referred by panchacharyas 
is the real marulasiddha who was there is Madhyapradesh, The history says that. you need  see the history of ujjain, please accept the facts, the marulasiddha ur referring is one of the marulasiddha out of n no of marulasiddha s of panchacharya clan.
If you are taliking about udbhava murthy , do you really believe in god then all gods are not historical figures(they are mytholigica figures, everything imaginary), please think broadly. What you are contradicting(u belive about god but not udbhava murthy.), Basically religion is the faith.
Marulasiddha without his concise made huge followers shortly and now these are called by 'Sadu Lingayaths'. Sadu Lingayaths does not believe in IDOLS, but they believe truly in "Shoonya", i.e no idol require to pray or praise. At end of his time Marulasiddha gave first blessings to a wisely kid as "Tarala Balu", which means "kid, do live for ever" (I agree it’s not an equivalent).
Frequent usage of Panchacharya in Lingayath's context does not mean only Panchacharya are Lingayaths. There are larger Lingayath groups and subgroups (100 odd to recall) spreading in states of Karnataka, Andra, Maharastra and Tamilnadu.
By your discusion, you only aware of basava centric and Karnataka, Andra, Maharastra and Tamilnadu realeted veerashaivism, you need read the book "Gadwal ka itihas" Gives clear idea.
If you really interested i will provide more books on history and proofs they will how old is Veerashaivism it is around 5000 BC old.
My intension is not to hurt anyone, but to put the records straight.
Dear friend we nevere talk about who has given deeksha to Marulasiddharadhya, but one  thinh we were discussing the history,
History is always the history, without evidences one cannot be falsely propogate false facts.
Please donot write provocating thinsg like, "How can a guru who sit 3 feet above others can give a gurudeeksha to an untouchable?" This will really spoil discussion.
:Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingayat and Marulasiddha

message: Some places in karnataka they also knows as Ghanigas.
:Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghaniga community

message: The origin of the word is Linga means Shivalinga pointing shivism
:Please sign your comments with ~~~~. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Word lingayat

message: Reading the link lingayathism.net - brief history I see lot's of information that is relevant to the article. If anyone feel inclined to, it would be nice to have the basic beliefs and the separateness from the "religion" hinduism in the article. That as a basis would strenghten the process towards a full informative (also for outsiders like me) article on this "religio-sociological movement" ("religion" if you wish, I'll buy it personally, but in an encyclopedia outside opinions have to be reflected, and I can have no say). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenets and beliefs?

message: # Seems like there is a difference between Veerashaivism and Lingayatism, hinduist sources tend to say that Lingayatism is a kind of Veerashaivism, but of course many of them claim Buddhism and Jainism to be kinds of hinduism which is a "non-standard" interpretation on what constitutes a religion. It is possible that we must have two articles, one on Lingayatism and one on Veerashaivism...
# The Āgamas seems to be a critical issue: the few lingayat sources (more needed), seem to reject the Shaiva Agamas, while the text claims that the Lingayatism uses the Shaiva Agamas. Which is correct? Possibly (my speculation) some Lingayats accept the Shaiva Agamas and others not. Or the ones that call themselves Veerashaivas accept the Shaiva Agamas. Which is correct? This hinduist source agrees on the Vedas and Āgamas being the defining factor for what is to be regarded as a hinduist religion, and what is not.
I'm the neutral outsider, wondering why there's a tendency for a perfect equality, and another for monotheism in the majority of religions. Your opinions? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General questions

message: Currently the article is set up as an article on the religion, rather than the people. There is a little information on the modern community, but it's very little. Yet searching for "Lingayat" redirects here. 
Maybe there should be a separate page on that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to write it, though. Lewis Trondheim (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingayat as Caste/Community

message: The following are supposedly famous people but are red links so moved to talk.  RJFJR (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposedly famous Lingats moved from article 

message: As a person from Karnataka where there are a large number of followers of Lingayatism,I find the article in a bad shape with lot of POV.Also Lingayat is not a caste.Lingayats are found in several castes on the contrary(Will be giving links for the same).However,they identify themselves as Lingayats and not by their caste since Basavanna's main motive was to fight Caste System.I'll be gratified if someone comes forward to help me edit this article.:)-Raghavan(Talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in a Bad Shape 

message: I don't know from where and how Lingayat Caste has any relevance and why the page name is called Lingayat Caste.
I propose to rename page to Lingayatism. Lingayatism is a philosophy infact a kind of reform/refinement in/of Hinduism. It is by no means limited to Lingayat people. --Onef9day Talk! 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the page is "Lingayatism".इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011  14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingayat Caste : is it a caste ????

message: For example Basava Puranamu by Palkuriki Somanathudu from the Andhra-Telengana region  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2doubt2 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should mention contributions from other regions and languages 

message: Is vegetarianism as practiced by Lingayats any different from others? Do we need the template pointing to a (red)-link as 'Vegetarianism in Lingayatism' ? Suggest pointing to page on Vegetarianism instead.Antariki Vandanamu 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetariansim in Lingaytism

message: The debate about relationship between Lingayatism and Veerashaivism, as a single entity or two different sects, has become an endless debate. Perhaps, a common lingayat is unaware and uneducated about the significance and correctness of this debate. The two views by experts, scholars and historians, all lingayats themselves, have become so polar that nothing can be deciphered as the truth. So, this article should be rewritten from a contemporary viewpoint of Lingayat history and the debate about Ishtalinga representing Lord Shiva, with due weightage to scholarly interpretations. Also, as the government recognizes the community as Veerashaiva Lingayats, there is a strong need to incorporate things about Vedic Veerashaivism in the article, since a significant population of the community also adheres to Panchacharyas in addition to Basavanna. I myself a Lingayat, through my constant observations about this vast diverse ethnic community, will apply my own knowledge about the demography to the article. I request all interested users to contribute in this direction. Also, this article needs to be semi-protected to prevent constant addition of unsourced biased content as there is a vast scope for Cherry picking about Lingayatism. Rather, a significant portion of the article can be concentrated on the present Lingayat Mutts and their vast contributions to the society, and their stronghold over non Lingayats as centers of faith and trust.
In addition, there is a strong need for a separate article about Lingayats as a community in addition to the existing article Lingayatism which is about the faith they adhere to. I will start a article soon on this.
Thank You.   ~ Irrigator  talk 04:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No consistency in the article, and need for a separate article on ''Lingayats'' as a contemporary demographic community

message: Question: "Should Allama Prabhu be called a Hindu leader? Is Lingayatism a Hindu sect? Is XYZ a Hindu sect/denomination?"
: Good points above. Frankly, most scholars and I too have struggled with that question. It is the same sort of controversy you find in other religions (e.g. was or is Sufi or Ahmadiyya or Bahai an Islamic sect?). The answer depends on the premises / presumptions / stereotypes. I have no particular preference about the classification, and what is or what isn't included in Hinduism (or some other religion).
The challenge for Shivaprakash and much of the literature about Indian medieval history is the authenticity of the documents they rely on. Most, if you dig deeper, are hagiographies full of myth and miracles, where multiple manuscripts exist, and each says different things. While @Mohanbhan calls "HS Shivaprakash is a well-known authority", this is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Wiki articles are to be based on the "widely held scholarly views, that can be verified", and according to community agreed policies and guidelines. In this case, that does not mean we ignore Shivaprakash, it means we consider Shivaprakash and additional scholars.
Now, lets return to the above Question. In Shivaprakash's book, I do not see the conclusion anywhere, "Lingayatism is not a Hindu sect". I see a mention of Hinduism on page 3 of introduction of Shivaprakash book, the second para, where it also reads, "[At the time of Vijayanagara's resistance to Muslim invasion], Sharana movement was no more an immediate reality. It was glorious memory, a myth. They carried out a reinterpretation of the myth....". In The Context of Vachana Translations section of his introduction, 6th to 8th paragraph, I see a review by Shivaprakash, where he acknowledges "many" non-Virashaiva scholars, Brahmins in particular and others, presenting Virashaivism as "extension of Hinduism" and "reformatory Hinduism" (his words). Thus we do see support, "Lingayatism, to many non-Virashaiva scholars, is an extension/reform movement in Hinduism".
Now lets go beyond Shivaprakash, consider additional scholars, as summarized in tertiary literature. Here is the opening line in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Lingayat:
::Lingayat, also called Virashaiva, member of a Hindu sect with a wide following in southern India that worships Shiva as the only deity.
:::– Lingayat, Hindu sect, Alternative title: Virashaiva article, Encyclopedia Britannica (2015)
The reliable sources are suggesting the answer to the above Question is Yes. However, I must also note my agreement with you (except that your wording may be conflating Brahmanism with "priestly class Brahmin-ism"?, as some others do). Scholars do question, what is Hinduism? and is Lingayat or Shaivism or Vaishnavism or Shaktism or Smartism or XYZ a distinct religion, if yes or no, how, since when, where, why?
The constructive approach here would be to "better try to provide additional info, which makes clear the nuances." @Mohanbhan's approach of picking a side, calling sources as fringe/undue, deleting the content and those sources, and then failing to provide mainstream source(s) with page numbers that actually say what he imagines/alleges they say, is not constructive, and does not help in "making clear the nuances". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Allama Prabhu]] infobox as Hindu leader  - copied from [[Talk:Allama Prabhu]] 

message: There has been discussion on talk:Allama Prabhu on whether Lingayatism is part of Hinduism. It was pretty much deadlocked. I suggested that the discussion be moved here in order to seek broader input, and copied the relevant talk page sections above.  please continue the discussion here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The following sources include Lingayatism as a sect of Hinduism: [1] Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, , Appendix II, pages 175-187 [2] Melton and Baumann (2010), Religions of the World, , page 3072 [3] Dalal (2011), The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths, Penguin, , page 209. As @Kautilya3 has conveniently linked into this talk page, the discussion on talk page(s) elsewhere, please see the quotes above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingayatism as Hinduism 

message: What's the criteria for including "Notable Lingayats" in this article. What makes these 5 people more prominent than the others mentioned at List of Lingayats? utcursch | talk 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question utcursch - there do not appear to be any criteria, so we run the risk of the entire List of Lingayats being repeated here, which would dominate this page and make the separate list redundant.How can we assess "relative notability" B. D. Jatti - Acting President of India - V - Vaijanath Biradar a comedy actor? let alone write an all encompassing criteria that avoids never-ending arguments? The problem is that, if one name is included, numerous others will then be added - do we just leave the hatnote to List of Lingayats and remove everything else? - Arjayay (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets take it out, and keep it out. No need, the link in See Also suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. A link in the See also section is enough. utcursch | talk 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Lingayats 

message: You keep re-adding a website that does not meet WP:EL accuracy requirements. It triggers several WP:ELNO and possibly WP:COI concerns. Please explain why it meets wikipedia's external links guideline, and your relationship with that website? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELNO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lingayatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182106/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/10/SHU-1989-019-9.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/10/SHU-1989-019-9.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721182219/http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/13/SHU-1989-019-Bibliography.pdf to http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/3513/13/SHU-1989-019-Bibliography.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please keep an eye on vandalism on this page. There has been various, strange vandalism on this page since your last edit. I have undone the recent one. Thanks. 117.192.215.207 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism problems=

message: Please explain why a list of names is due and meaningful to this article? A list of names for either side, reads like a meaningless WP:SOAP. If you could summarize their rationale, that would be welcome because it could improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no way in which this is SOAP. I have merely listed, using a reliable news source, some prominent Lingayats who support this stance. I don’t see why approval for inclusion must be dependent upon specifying each individuals reason for their stance, even though the source does provide such information. However, if you would like to read the source and add your desired additions then you are more than welcome. --Onlyeko (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Onlyeko: I have read your cited source already. It reads like soapboxing and news. I will add a few more words from that source for now, but I lean on removing it as wikipedia is not a vote tally/list of supporters and opposers. ,  thoughts on this sort of content? Should we add a list of Lingayat / Virashaiva / Hindu / non-Hindu names for the other side for NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I completely disagree about your interpretation of the source. I see nothing more than a news source that describes the opinions of anti-Hindu-sect Lingayats within the broader context of Indian political machinations. Listing prominent members of this group in a Wikipedia article, to me, appears no different to listing prominent anti-Scottish and -Catalan independence proponents. --Onlyeko (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  Thankyou. --Onlyeko (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Onlyeko: Lets not quote other wikipedia articles as defense for soap/advocacy in this article! WP:WWIN guidelines caution us that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of who votes how. I yield to Kautilya3's suggestion above. On Shivakumara Swami, please note that the cited source is far more nuanced on who is claiming what the Swami supports. See also, "and persuaded its leaders to refrain from any such judgment. A steady stream of politicians has since made the pilgrimage. Delegates from both parties, all Lingayats, plead quietly for a moment of the swami’s dwindling time" part. The article does not say anywhere that the Swami has publicly announced his position. We need to be careful and pay attention to NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about this sentence, regarding the Swami, from the source? “Mr Patil came away announcing that the great seer had agreed with him that Lingayatism should be declared its own religion, distinct from Hinduism.“ The Swami’s position could be restored with the qualifier that it is according to Patil’s claim. --Onlyeko (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Anyway, I’m quite pleased with the fruits of this discussion. Hopefully you feel the same way. --Onlyeko (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing names is soapboxing, not encyclopedic 

message: The sentence "Lingayatism shares beliefs with Indian religions, such as about reincarnation, samsara and karma" is totally contrary to the teachings of the founder of Linagaytism, Basavanna. Lingayatism in fact rejects the concepts of reincarnation and Karma. Please change the sentence to Lingayatism rejects the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
Also, please add this sentence: Basavanna built upon the philosophy of 11th century philosopher Jedara Dasimayya in establishing the Lingayat religion. Hash50 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 13:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017 

message: So, which one is it? This:
Or this:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source may be okay for news, but is not RS for history/religion scholarship. Instead of these blog-like news articles which never state which law are they are talking about and what are their sources, we need to find scholarly sources that do... and then we can include that. I was in Kerala a while ago visiting their archaeological sites / monasteries / temples, and the historical evidence does not support the allegation that "women could not cover their breasts". Tipu Sultan's legacy in Kerala and south Karnataka is controversial and there is much unscholarly revisionism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dress code 

message: The Wikipedia article on the Lingayatism seems to me to be a mixture of bald facts, half-truths, misunderstandings and outright hoaxes-its a propaganda site not an encyclopedia.wiki editors bluntly censor views they disagree with. 
Yesterday I corrected some points mentioned in article about Lingayat beliefs, but wiki editors bluntly censor views even if they were properly cites/sourced.
What was Initially:
What I corrected:
What wiki editors bluntly censored down eventually diff:
wiki editor wrongly boiled down some points and did not allow more true facts to be added to the paragraph:
* 1.Lingayatism accepts the general idea of transmigration of the soul, but you mentioned incorrectly.
* 2.What beliefs does Lingayatism share with indic religions? Not mentioned!
* 3.Why did you remove last two lines added with good resources?
I request wiki editors not to be biased, adamant and not to behave like an eccentric old grandpa!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavantenkale (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have a point about reincarnation; I'll look at it again later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

text: So, the pain is with this separate identity versus Indian religions c.q. Hinduism. NB: you wrote "Lingayats do not believe in rebirth" but you also wrote "Though they accept the general idea of transmigration of the soul, they believe that Lingayats are in their last lifetime and are not subject to rebirth." So, you're contradicting yourself; apparently, Lingayats do belief in rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections

message: ;Pavantenkale text:
*  - inaccessible for me; I note, though, that you've searching again for confirmation of your views.
*  - "The Lingayats belief that on death the devotee will not return to this world and he or she will be reunited with Shiva."
*  - "they also do not believe in rebirth, for they hold that by wearing the lingam round their neck they automatically get salvation after their death."
*  - "do not believe in the concept of rebirth"
*  - straight quote from the source.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: The article says:
I can't access Olson nor Rice, but the text seems to come straight from the Encyclopdia Britannica:
This statement is flatly contradicted by other sources, such as Schouten (1995) p.6, which state that the Pancharya mythology is a later development. The EB also doesn't give any source for their statement. What to do? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalachuri inscriptions 

message: "Lingayatism is a distinct Shaivite religious tradition in India." is not mentioned in any of the sources cited. It is mentioned as Shaivite sect or caste but not "distinct religious tradition". Capankajsmilyo (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Schouten (1995) p.6: "the distinct religious and social convictions". See also the most recent developments in  Karnataka. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: Hm, the numbr of page-views seems to explode. The page is probably mentioned somewhere on a website? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because of the political turmoil in India.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page-views 

message: the article now says:
You questioned this piece of info somewhere. Ramesh Bairy (2013), Being Brahmin, Being Modern: Exploring the Lives of Caste Today, Routledge (Google, top of the list; the original url is blocked by Wikipedia), has more information on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingi Brahmins 

message: This source, 
Chandan Gowda (23 march 2018), Terms of separation, The Hindu, does not justify the following change:
into
Nor does it justify the removal of the following info:
into
What Chandan Gowda writes is:
A part of the Lingayat-community wants recognition as a separate religion; committee has made a recognition; this recognition is supported by the Karnataka government. That's what can be stated factual. Not all Lingayats want to be recognized as a separate religion; most, if not all, scholarly sources do not describe Lingayatism as a "separate religion." See also WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RECENTISM. As an aside: the last sentence also does not make sence in itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Idem for this change. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

text: And this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition as a separate religion 

message: Bairy does not say explicitly that the Lingayats demanded a Brahmin status. The fact is that they had abandoned varna distinctions, but the census straitjacket was trying to put them into a varna. This is a brilliant example of the problems with the colonial census exercises. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Bairy does state that Lingayats wanted to be treated as Brahmins. Anyway, I guess you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste status controversy 

message: Veerashaiva or Veerashaivism is a seperate tradition or sect, it has no relationship with Basava movement or Lingayatism.
Purposefully some writers mixing Veerashaiva with lingayatism to destroy Veerashaiva traditions.
Veerashaiva is unique path which worship Shiva which has no connection with lingayats, lingayats don't belive in temple worship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.209.6 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veerashaivism 

message: I've twice diff diff removed the following addition:
* The sentence "According to SM Jamdar[...] the 1881 Census." is a straight copy from , and therefore a WP:COPYVIOLATION. It also contradicts Bairy (2013), at subsection Caste status debates (19th–20th century), "In the 1871 and the 1881 census, Lingayats were registered as shudras,[34]." At best, this info could be added to the note there, which I did here.
* The Gajendragadkar quote is anecdotical, inserted here to "prove" a point, and does not belong here.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate religious identity 

message: Just a note in case the socks return - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhakahika socks 

message: See this interesting historical theology and anthropology note on Lingayatism, in the The Journal of the Anthropological Society. It is too dated to use here other than perhaps with caution in the history/historical studies section. Parts therein are also incorrect per later scholarship. Still, information in there such as the table that starts on page 183 onwards is interesting, as is the theory on Lingayats/Veerashaivas on how and why they attracted Shaiva Brahmins and others who championed reforms. Part 3 starts on page 250 and discusses how the community grew and evolved over time, calling non-Veerashaivas as Bhavis and avoiding any association with them, as well as the disputes about their status in the colonial era Bombay High Court. This old paper gives another perspective, in contrast to the recent revisionism and non-scholarly claims on Lingayatism and Veerashaivism in Indian newspapers/blogs/tabloids by the different sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some historical notes on Lingayatism and Veerashaivism 

message: I have removed recent addition of unreliable and questionable sources. We should rely on peer-reviewed sources, and newspapers are okay as sources for recent developing news, but they are not appropriate for history, theology and other details. For these, peer-reviewed scholarship should be relied upon. There is too much advocacy and emotionally charged biased propaganda / allegations / counter-allegations / politics in blogs / op-ed newspapers etc particularly now that their election season is underway. Please see WP:RS, WP:HISTRS and WP:WWIN guidelines for more reasons. Lingayatism is centuries old and there is plenty of peer-reviewed scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid newspapers / tabloids / blogs / websites for this article