Talk:Hinduism/Archive 19

message: I have changed any occurrence of Lorem Ipsum   to the simple ====Lorem Ipsum====. I don't know if this is controversial or not, so I have asked here.--0rrAvenger 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally support the use of standard formatting, so I think this would be a good change.  Removing overspecification of formatting such as font-size tags makes articles more standardized across Wikipedia, which is a good thing. Buddhipriya 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an added side-effect, an [edit] button has been added as a result of the change.--0rrAvenger 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original thought behind using the HTML tags was to keep the article's Table of Content to a "manageable" length. But the change, possibly introduced by me (though it's hard to remember for sure), was admittedly a kludge. I have now used the  template to achieve the same affect. Overall, I too think 0rrAvenger's change is an improvement. Abecedare 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am open to that, since it will avoid displaying the huge blank space that currently precedes the Etymology section. But, before we take that possibly non-standard step, perhaps we can look to see if any other FA-class article (that this page aspires to be) uses that strategy. Do you have pages in mind ?  Abecedare 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I apologize if I have done a disservice 

message: Reference #3:Kenoyer, J. M. "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization" pages 180-183. Oxford University Press 1998 
Although I couldnt fishout the book, I managed to find a comentary on his other article and it says Kenoyer deciphered the Indus script and found to close to Near Eastern relgions but no direct mention to Hinduism. Thanks! Wiki San Roze talk  13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you should probably finish reading the entire book, Wiki San Roze. Kenoyer, first of all, has not deciphered the entire Indus script: he has made convincing arguments for the idea that they are logo-syllabic and that he's deciphered a few of the glyphs. Secondly, he has made a connection to the Mesopotamian civilization because it is well known that Indus Valley 'polises' had active trade relations with Mesopotamia and that their script may connect to them, insofar as the Mesopotamian system influenced their use of written characters. However, Kenoyer also makes the additional assertion that the actual language being represented by the Indus script is in fact Dravidian. I assume you know that Dravidian is a name used to refer to the set of languages which predominate in the southern half of the Indian peninsula (though evidence of Dravidian languages have been found northwards). As such, Kenoyer is actually making an argument for the continuity of Indus Valley culture with later Indian history, which would actually support the conjecture that the Pashupati seal, the great bath of Mohenjodaro, a hoary proto-yogic/Hindu culture existed which would later be transmitted to, or at the very least influence, the Aryan civilization which flourished (and who either brought with them or composed upon arrival the Vedas). --69.203.80.158 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I should mention, many scholars (from all sorts of fields) are uncomfortable with the terms 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' because these names have a loaded history. The funny thing is that the Persians in fact called anyone who lived in India 'Hindus' because of the Indus river! When careful scholars talk about 'Hinduism', they are careful to define it, and the usual definition involves the 'Vedic' tradition (Upanishads, Yoga, Tantra, Bhakti, etc.). For that reason, even if in fifty years scholars do find links between Indus Valley culture and Hinduism, they'd probably end up talking about the syncretism between Indus Valley cultural forms and beliefs with later Vedic peoples. --69.203.80.158 06:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry... I didn't quite realize the context until I checked out the article... I still stand by what I've said about the book, which is that we can't cite Kenoyer as proof-positive either FOR or AGAINST the Indus Valley civilization's connection with Hinduism, although his findings would actually strengthen that argument (NOT, I must add, make it solid, because there are still many lacunae unexplained)... however, I would think the bold statement that Hinduism has its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization, an unsupported statement in the introductory paragraph of the article, needs to be removed, unless it were amended to state that there is even speculation of such an origin, though the argument is still suspect: tracing certain elements or traditions back to an ancient date doesn't justify saying the religion is actually that old... in that case, it's easy to date Judaism back to the very first ritual slaughter of a ram, which would probably help it date back to 5000 BCE! --69.203.80.158 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The roots of Hinduism, much as with the roots of life are steeped more in theories than in solid facts - thus the arguments continue, each with their own pov. Gouranga(UK) 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am taking for granted that there is no objection in removing the Indus V entry once again. Thanks! ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Hinduism: reference 

message: I reverted to the last stable version of the article that I could find, which was as of May 21.  That was prior to edit wars, protection of the page, and various vandalism episodes.  I made this change not because I think there is any particular content issue, but simply because the page lost track of controlled editing along the line and I would like to see if we can try again for a more orderly process. Buddhipriya 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is unprotected, falling back to last stable version 

message: See 
I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. Some editors strongly believe idolatry is a negative word (exactly as propagated by Abrahamic religions) and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the vivid paintings used by the Russian Orthodox Church, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (in flesh and blood) (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, rats, snakes,...) under the care of appointed minders and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope/context of iconography or moorti worship. There is no question of malice in the choice of words. 
Idolatry is the core pillar of Hinduism. God is believed to manifest himself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), trees (like banyan), flora (like lotus) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, buffaloes, monkeys, rats, et al). For instance, the rat temple in Rajasthan  attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings. This is nothing to be ashamed of and brushed under. It is part and parcel of the rich Indian heritage.
It should be noted that iconography is only a small subset of the vast fabric of idolatry in Hinduism. Instead of getting unnecessarily neurotic over terminology, this subject must be a collaborative work to raise Wikipedia usability.
Also, may I remind that this is a encyclopaedia. So there is no room for political correctness. What may be offensive to some, may be informative to others. On a personal note, I don't think there is anything evil about animal or devil worship either. So let us get rid of the stereotypes and stick to matters of fact. Now voodoo worship is also considered acceptable.
Anwar 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tulsi is not worshipped as the Supreme God, but as a devotee of God. I am not aware of any of the core traditions of Hinduism worshipping trees, rats or flowers as the Supreme God either? Deities such as Ganesha or Hanuman when worshipped as manifestations of God are not considered to be everday animals but divine beings. See articles such as Deva (Hinduism), Brahman and Ishvara for further details. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I agree with Anwar saadat when he says "there is no room for political correctnes". Also, there is a difference inbetween worshipping the actual icon and worshipping the God it represents in front of the icon. The first case is a case of idotary. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anwar, iconography is used for three dimensional objects. From Icon: "religious cults or religious cultures[1] have been inspired or supplemented by concrete images, whether in two dimensions or three." As for the rest of your comments, they have been answered above. Consensus here is obviously in favor of keeping the far more academic and NPOV (and less neurotic, it appears) term 'icon'. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Priyanath, I must say that I'm not sure about that reference to 'three-dimensional' in the icon article. Do you have a scholarly citation about this? That said, I'd just like to point out that I would strongly deprecate the use of the word 'idol', which sounds deeply inappropriate to my ears - image, or a link to murti, should be sufficient. However, icon is strongly associated with two-dimensional representation in the religious context. Further, iconodgraphy has a strict meaning - the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, for example - rather than the veneration of that image, so cannot be used as a replacement for idolatry. Where necessary, use a more exact phrase rather than an inaccurate or contested word. Hornplease 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very cursory search finds two respected and notable authors referring to Hindu murtis(readily assumed to be three-dimensional) as icons and also to iconography. "What is important is that the deities as icons in temples mediate between the human world and a divine or sacred reality, and that the icon as 'deity' might be seen as a 'spiritualization' of matter." (Flood, Gavin, Introduction to Hinduism page 14). The book Development of Hindu Iconography is about... well, Hindu Iconography. According to Amazon, the  author, "Dr. Jitendra Nath Banerja was an eminent historian and Indologist. He was Carmichael Professor and Head of the Department of Ancient Indian History, Calcutta University until his retirement in 1959." Both terms are academic, explanatory, NPOV, and encyclopedic. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That search was far too cursory. The Flood reference was a bit of a throwaway; he doesn't seem to use it again much. And you clearly didnt read what I wrote above... iconography is about the traditional accoutrements of a religious image, 2-d or 3-d. It cannot be used as a word representing the veneration of images. Hindu iconography discusses the fact that Shiva is usually shown with a snake coiled round his head, etc. Hence, both terms are quite inapplicable. Please. Hornplease 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article on Murti is well-named now, as the concept is difficult to translate into English as this discussion has demonstrated.  Use of terms such as "idolatry" and "cult image" reflect POV issues by persons who do may not be familiar with the underlying issues.  I hope people will not begin changing article names in response to this little flurry of debate. The term "iconography" is a general techincal term used widely in religious studies to refer to the symbolic use of images and plastic arts.  Many books on Indology contain chapters or Appendices on iconography.  Finding the right word to translate the term Murti is a challenge, because there is no precise translation into English for the conceptual issue.  Some Western Indologists, such as Gavin Flood, use the term "icon", but the index to Flood (1996) makes the translation issue clear by having an index entry for murti which adds a "see also" entry to "icon of a deity". (ref: Flood 1996, p. 336.)  A quick survey of a few texts may make the translation issue apparent. The index for Thomas Hopkins' "The Hindu Religious Tradition" has an entry for murti which he translates as "form" with a "see also" to "images". (Hopkins, p. 153) Buddhipriya 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 1000%. Murti is an entirely different concept than what I read at Cult image and Idolatry or the loaded term idol worship. The terminology in this article, and in the other articles, has been well thought out and discussed in the past—here and by other academics. Let's keep, and let people become educated about Hinduism—that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with Murti, it was local editors above who were suggesting renames (i don't know what redirects there - there should be many things). But I think the current redirect from idol worship to idolatry a very bad idea indeed, and neither title is what is needed. "Cult image" is a neutral academic term. There is a strong need for a better general article on the subject, covering all religions. Johnbod 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with trying to make an article for "all religions" is that the use of a Murti in Hinduism may in fact not be the same as the use of images in other religions.  That is part of the problem of definition.  Further, not all statues of deities are technically murtis, under some strict ritual defintions, as in some cases only statues which have been ritually blessed in certain ways become embodiments of the divine.  We have discussed this before in the parallel to the Christian concept of transubstantiation in which under certain conditions bread and wine may ritually become the body and blood of Christ.  This transformation of status is the result of ritual actions.  During festivals, part of the process of preparation of large parade murtis involves a similar blessing or transformation, which for a short period of time gives the murti a special character that it did not have while sitting in the shop. Buddhipriya 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly, but you can't just not have general articles like cult image and idol worship. Obviously more detailed articles should be referred to as "main article" etc, and there will be problems, but there always are.  The practices/beliefs you mention just above were I think very similar to those in some other ancient religions also.  Almost anything is better than a redirect to idolatry anyway. Johnbod 22:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there currently any specific action item such as a proposed redirection that is on the table at this time?  I have lost track of what the original issue was and if there is any particular followup still being proposed. Buddhipriya 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the redirect of idol worship to idolatry is under review here  Johnbod 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that.  I just looked at Idolatry and cut the entire section on Hinduism because it was unsourced except for one web link to a site that would fail the tests of WP:EL.  I hope more Hindu editors watchlist the articles involved, and demand better sourcing in the future.  According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed."  If editors did nothing more than demand compliance with that policy, the problems with patent nonsense on Hinduism articles could gradually be reduced. Buddhipriya 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just use murti. John, buddhipriya and priyanath agree on that, and it seems fitting for wikipedia to educate the reader to what a murti is..Bakaman 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with using murti.--0rrAvenger 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, that's my preference, or a suitable phrase. Hornplease 06:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Murti it is. We should establish a general rule for this and other Hinduism pages that the Hindu/Sanskrit terminology is retained unless there is a clear and simple English translation which won't cause chaos when used. GizzaChat © 07:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In conjunction with this discussion I have been poking around and was a bit dismayed to find that some of the articles like Shilpa shastras and Prana pratishta, which are technical issues related to all of this, were in very sad shape.  I have at least set up proper citation apparatus for those articles (and for Murti) in hopes that this spurt of interest may stimulate some of the editors to crack the books and add some citations that will spruce up those articles. Buddhipriya 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, moving somewhat off-topic, most articles in :Category:Genres of Indian art are pretty stubby: Rajput painting etc, and generally Indian art is not well covered. The current account at History of painting is not good either. Johnbod 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto for Hindu deities - could do with some renovation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above analysis of the issues and also request that if you wish to pursue these points, that you please take them up one at a time rather than making bulk edits that cover a wide range of issues at the same time.  If you were to focus on one topic at a time, such as snake worship or something else, that point could then be examined using strong sources, that is, academic books, rather than relying on web sites, many of which have problems related to WP:EL and WP:RS.  As the other editor mentioned, the wording of material can also influence semantics.  For many of these points, a survey of several academic sources would probably turn up variations in language that can be explored on the talk page so shadings can be considered by multiple editors.  Buddhipriya 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Free_speech|Free speech]]

message: What is objectionable with this extract?
Hinduism is sometimes considered to be a henotheisticHenotheism - Archaeology - About.com, but such a view oversimplifies a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning idolatry, polytheism, "Polytheism", Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007  pantheism, monism and even atheism. For instance, the Advaita Vedanta school holds that there is only one causal entity (Brahman), which manifests itself to humans in multiple forms including plants (like Tulasi), flora (like lotus), trees (like banyan) and animals (like snakes, cows, elephants, monkeys, rats, et al).See generally, Swami Bhaskarananda, The Essentials of Hinduism (Viveka Press 1994)  The rat temple in Rajasthan  National Geographic News attracts pilgrims from across India who hope for blessings while snake worship is more popular in south India. Snake worship in the Deccan  Many scholars consider the Samkhya school of thought to have had atheistic leanings. 
All links are produced from mainstream websites. Snake worship is not some obscure occult practice. There are plenty of motion picture films in Tamil praising the omnipotence of the Snake God. Anwar 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above analysis of the issues and also request that if you wish to pursue these points, that you please take them up one at a time rather than making bulk edits that cover a wide range of issues at the same time.  If you were to focus on one topic at a time, such as snake worship or something else, that point could then be examined using strong sources, that is, academic books, rather than relying on web sites, many of which have problems related to WP:EL and WP:RS.  As the other editor mentioned, the wording of material can also influence semantics.  For many of these points, a survey of several academic sources would probably turn up variations in language that can be explored on the talk page so shadings can be considered by multiple editors.  Buddhipriya 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Snake worship]]