Talk:Hinduism/Archive 20

message: The below sentence:
The earliest evidence for certain (minor) elements of Hinduism date back as far as the late neolithic to the early Harappan period (ca. 5500–2600 BCE).
is a bit misleading although the reference quoted says 3000 BCE. I reckon the person who wrote this meant to define the time scale as per neolithic period, but unfortunately the reference states it as just 3000 BCE. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence should be changed to 3000 BCE then. Simple. Unless someone wants to add a source that says minor evidence dates further back, I have no problems in it being changed. GizzaDiscuss © 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivocal sentence- needs rephrasing 

message: I merged "Epics" and "Mahajapanadas" (Philosophy) sections together because chronologically they overlap and we should remove excessive sectionisation. I think that the "Indology and reform movements" is an example of this article suffering from WP:RECENT. The last para of that sub-section will go to Demographics but it still needs to be further pruned. Btw, well done Dwaipayan for compacting the Beliefs section! GizzaDiscuss © 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History sections 

message: It is only two lines and in the "Scriptures" section so I believe it should merged somewhere else. Perhaps in beliefs? GizzaDiscuss © 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hinduism#Schools_of_philosophy]] 

message: The section before on Ashramas briefly mention Sannyasis in one sentence. I think removing this section and adding one or two more sentences to the section before is appropriate to cut down on the number of sections (ie. shrink the ToC) and the general length of the article. GizzaDiscuss © 05:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monasticism section 

message: I tried to re-write the beliefs section, removing about 7 KB in the process. Please see. Also, I have fixed some references in that section (that is, used templates and incorporated as much information as available about the references). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writing beliefs 

message: Currently this section lists a large number of links that in my opinion are unessential and/or redundant. Before I cull the section drastically, can others opine if there is any particular link they think should be retained ? Abecedare 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say we can keep Hinduism and other religions because that is quite broad and other specific articles like Buddhism and Hinduism can then go. Then I realised that it is in a very poor state. In the second half, I believe Dharmic religions and Eastern philosophy are the only articles that have enough reason to stay. In the first half, only List of related articles in broad enough IMO. Other pages such as Hinduism by country are/should be linked in their relevant section of the article through the  mechanism, in this example, the demographics sections when we get eventually create it. GizzaDiscuss © 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hinduism#See also|See also section]] 

message: I restored this link because the article looked useful and was relevant. If there is anything that is untrue or offensive it should be addressed in the [Hinduism and Sikhism] article, and not by removing the link to it. My knowledge of Sikhism is not sufficient to comment on the current accuracy of the linked article. -- Q Chris 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hinduism and the sikh panth restored link 

message: Hi! I am making several changes in the article. Merging sub-sections, trying to make more compact, and regularizing the references. Please see and edit as appropriate.
Also, before making major changes, I invite you to my sandboxes where various sections are being kept. Please make changes there first, then copy to the article. This helps a lot. Relevant sandboxes are User:Dwaipayanc/sandbox13, 12 and 11. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Hi! I have started the process of separating explanatory footnotes and citations. Also, in "References" section, all the books are now in Harvard referencing format. This will be helpful, as inline citations can now be placed in Harv or Harvnb formats. Since the article uses a lot of book references, I thought Harvard referencing style and citations will be better suited. I shall start on converting appropriate inline citations to Harv format soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The separation into two sections as you are doing is not consistent with WP:LAYOUT and seems to me to be confusing.  I think it should be reverted.  Regarding Harvard reference templates, I do not object to the Harvnb template per se, but I do object to the use of named references, as they make it very difficult to have multiple editors changing individual items.  If one named reference is changed, there is collateral damage elsewhere that is hard to unscramble.  Significant changes to citation methods in a article need consensus.  Can you please hold off on further changes until this is fully-discussed? Buddhipriya 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References etc 

message: Reference [18] in the text has no entry in the References/Notes section. AppleJuggler 13:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was due to the fact that the article makes extensive use of named references, which are very difficult to maintain.  I think that the use of named references should be eliminated, because the effect of them is that if one editor changes something in one place, there is collateral damage elsewhere that can be very difficult to assess.  It took me multiple editing passes trying to fix one broken reference before I noticed this issue here.  We also are making extensive use of the Harvard templates, which is dislike.  Changes to the citation system or another is something that should be discussed prior to making extensive changes. Currently the article is using error-prone methods that the most difficult procedurally, increasing the chances of similar errors in the future. Buddhipriya 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference -- please check 

message: Somehow the article has gotten out of line with [] and now has sections for Notes and Citation as separate things.  I think this should be fixed, using Notes for inline citations and References as the list of works cited in Notes, per policy.  We also have got a couple of quotations from the Gita added, which seem to me to be functioning as linkspam advertisements.  I think these should be reverted as part of the cleanup of the citation structure.  I have renamed the Notes section to follow the standard.  The remaining loose ends in Citations can be integrated into Notes if they are to be kept at all. Buddhipriya 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Notes/citation change was made intentionally by User:Dwaipayan based on his experience with FAC. (see Talk:Hinduism#Some comments and Talk:Hinduism#References etc). I think it would be a good idea to discuss the issue with him before reverting, so that we don't flip-flop between two styles. Abecedare 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted my own change and put the headings back to Citations and Notes as they were, but I strongly object to that setup and would like to return to the established approach.  The use of two different sections for citations makes it very difficult for the reader to easily see references, and increases the complexity of maintaining the two lists.  The use of two sections conflicts with the standard setup shown at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.  During FAC, many variations in layout wind up being approved, but if you follow the talk page for WP:LAYOUT you will see that there is a general tendency to prefer the standard arrangements.  So experience with a specific FAC is not determinative.  What do other editors think about this issue? Buddhipriya 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddhipriya, how exactly are links to an online version of a published work by Bhaktivedanta Swami (Bhagavad-Gita As-It-Is) classed as linkspam? There are not even any images or commercial products included in the site. Gouranga(UK) 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, the notes and citation should be recombined. What most people who think their way is better neglect to consider is that sooner or later, other editors will feel compelled to edit it back to existing guidelines. Please, please, please, if you sincerely think your way is better, discuss it on the guidelines talk pages and change the guidelines. But first, think about the work entailed to bring nearly 2 million article to your preferred style. There's a ton of inertia here, and it will bring the articles back to the guidelines eventually, regardless of the fact that they are not "policy". IPSOS (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the approach which IPSOS tried to implement, which would be to fall back to the previous stable version and then incrementally re-apply some of the edits, but remain in compliance with standard layout guidelines.  However I see that the fallback which IPSOS implemented has now been reverted by an editor for whom I have great respect.  I will refrain from making any direct edits on the article itself pending getting better agreement on what should be done.  Any major change to the referencing system for an article should be done only with agreement of multiple editors, so personally I think that the older method should be put in place again unless there is more explicit support for making a change.  Regarding named footnotes, I understand that they are permitted, but that does not mean that using them is a good idea.  They are very hard for multiple editors to maintain because a change to one of them can produce unexpected impacts elsewhere.  It is so difficult to get editors to do any citations at all, using a robust method is essential, in which individual notes can rise and fall without needing to affect the entire fabric of the article. Buddhipriya 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my comment on IPSOS's talk page for an explanation of my reversion, which I did after getting his consent. Changing the 6 notes to citations, if that is what we decide to do, will be very easy to do by hand since that involves just 6 discrete edits while reverting to the older version undoes all the effort put in consolidating sections, adding references and improving prose. IMO content edits will be harder to replicate than simple formatting changes, so I prefer we move forward from the current version of the article rather than start from the older version. Of course, we still have to decide what style to follow (a topic on which I have no set views yet) and we can wait for Dwaipayan to comment on the issue before proceeding. Abecedare 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are on the subject, another thing that I think should be cleaned up is use of notes to add uncited elaboration on content of the main article.  If I say "The sun is big." and then add a citation which says "In fact, it is really, really big, bigger even than the moon." that statement itself is just more unsourced opinion which should be cut unless a real citation can be given for it.  So many of the notes that appear in articles give an illusion of referencing where none in fact exists.  I generally cut all such notes, or move them into the main body of the article and put a fact tag on them. I understand that others may approach the critical apparatus in different ways, however, and I mention it simply to get the issue on the table. Buddhipriya 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall put my views a little bit later. I am just clarifying one thing now. In the present version, the "Notes" section lists those kind of "opinion"s as mentioned by Buddhipriya in the comment immediately above. And Citation section contains direct citations (book pages or websites) However, some opinions are not unsourced. Also, the process I started was not complete. So, some "opinion"-like references are still in Citation section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and Citations sections 

message: Per the request of Buddhipriya, further changes to references, citations and notes sections will not be carried out. So, we are open for a discussion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thank you so much for the effort which you have been making on this.  I hope you will forgive me for raising this issue after it was implemented rather than beforehand, as I understand that you made a good faith effort to seek opinion on it.  My time on Wikipedia has been rather limited in the past two weeks and I was not around at the time the change was made.  So your willingness to deal with a latecomer's concerns is much appreciated.  I fully support the general idea of upgrading the reference structure of the article, and am glad to see someone actively trying to improve things.  My concerns are related to the practical issues that I have seen on other articles when the complexity of the referencing system increases.  I have come to believe that it is best to use the simplest methods whenever possible, and comply as fully as we can with the general format standards, as that makes articles more robust and consistent across Wikipedia.  Personally I try to follow a one-revert rule for this sort of thing, so I will make no further edits to the main article until some group consensus has emerged on the best approach. Buddhipriya 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in reference and notes temporarily ceased