Talk:Vedas/Archive 3

message: I have finished going over the etymology section, moving all the etymology references to one place and giving references to three reliable sources for the Sanskrit.  In working on it it seems to me that the POV warning flag had been applied to this section because of the controversy over Indo-European roots.  I am not sure why this needs to be in the article, and I have moved the content here in case anyone wants to work it further.  One of the footnotes was in fact not a reference, just a call for a citation.  Buddhipriya 01:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of root vid- 

message: The article is already looking cleaner.  My plan for next moves will be to clarify that the term Vedas is used in two ways: 1. The Four Vedas (which each have an article), and 2. The vast Vedic corpus, which includes a lot of other things.  It should be easy to tighten that up and remove some of the remaining redundancy regarding structure.  Last step could be to clean up the sections on study and what they say.  Personally I think the material on what they say should mostly be found in the detail articles, keeping this at a high level.  I will pick away at it with this strategy unless someone has a better plan. Buddhipriya 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on the "Categories of Vedic Texts" section and cleaned it up.  I will leave the article alone for a day or so to see how others react.  For this section I am drawing heavily on Axel Michaels, whose 2004 book is very current and in my opinion is one of the best single-volume resources in the field. Buddhipriya 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mythology about VedaVyasa really needs to go.  It is a puranic fairy tale, and a silly one at that: it only makes Hindus look foolish for believing something not only grossly improbable but also counterfactual in that the Rgveda without a doubt existed before any of the others.  More precisely, this is not a fact, indeed nowhere near, about the Vedas.  At best, it is a statement about a (latter day) belief regarding the Vedas.  I made the same point in the "POV Notice" section of this Talk page a while back.  rudra 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved the edition and translation information to the respective main pages. rudra 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work, clears out some underbrush.  I also want to work in a little bit about the age strata that the materials have because it helps put into context some of the dating discrepancies.  These books were not like Harry Potter novels, issued on a specific day with people outside bookstores in sleeping bags awaiting the first copy.  They grew gradually over time, and in some cases the weight of the barnacles is greater than that of the ship. Buddhipriya 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at what is left, the section on "Cosmogony" is unsourced and looks to me like it should go.  It is not encyclopedic in tone and now conflicts with the tone of the rest of the article.  Does anyone disagree about that section being removed entirely unless it can be sourced?  Also note that the etmology portion conflicts with the newer etymology section that was added in the last round of changes. Buddhipriya 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  And ho heaved. rudra 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the entire section should be junked - it has no place in an article about the Vedas.  A separate article on what some people think of the Vedas might carry such material, and even then it would have to be worked on.  rudra 07:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the section, which was poorly cited to begin with.  It think the idea of adding something about modern interpretations is not bad, but it would need to be built from scratch.  As it stands the article is now getting fairly clean regarding the topic of how the actual body of Vedic scripture is defined, as opposed to what it means, which is very different issue.  Buddhipriya 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: An editor recently added sacred dance without a citation to the sourced list of upavedas that Rudra and I just updated with citations.  My reversion of that unsourced change to a cited list was reverted by another editor whom I generally respect, so I do not want to revert the reversion.  However I do want to point out the the change to content is unsourced, and I cannot confirm that change.  It is possible that natyashastra in general is in some list.  On a process level I recommend that it be removed until the statement can be sourced. Buddhipriya 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no citations on the material it was added to. Shouldn't that be removed too? IPSOS (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the edit history for the page you will see that Rudra and I have been doing a major rewrite, and the citations for the things that are in the list now are in the prefatory sentences to the list.  If this is unclear, perhaps we can change the presentation of the citations, but I would not add uncited material.  You are pointing out a good formatting issue with the list, which will invite future additions of whatever comes into people's minds.  If you agree with the general idea here, if you wish to revert the unsourced item (dance) in the next few days we can work together to get the citation format more ironclad.  I cannot do it tonight because I am going to bed soon. Buddhipriya 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a citation on each line. It's uncited. In any case, the breadth of Gandharvaveda is well known. Are you sure this is a topic you're familiar with? IPSOS (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The citations are Monier-Williams and Apte.  I believe the original edit (long ago) sourced the list from Apte.  Footnoting each item strikes me as hypercorrectness (a bane on many Hindu-related pages).  rudra 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you there. I reverted the removal b/c it is common knowledge that dance is part of the musical arts. I was surprised that any editor of this article wouldn't know that off the top of their head. A quick Google search on "Gandharvaveda dance" would have resolved the question immediately. What I don't understand is why people are so quick to remove things that they don't take the time to do a quick basic reality check first. Frankly, I think it is an editor's duty to try to find a quick temporary web reference first, and only remove if they can't find a reasonable amount of verification. This should be especially true for editors who do not have an in-depth understanding of the topic. I see the work of many experts being nibbled to death by those who are too quick to apply the "rules". Many articles end up looking like they have been cobbled together by someone whose only knowledge of the subject was gathered as they were writing it! IPSOS (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred dance as an upaveda? 

message: I am transferring one of the citations to here to clarify what edit is being made.  This is the citation involved.  The problem is that the language "the current arrangement" is unclear.  It is dropped into a section discussing the academic system of arrangement for the entire Vedic corpus, which is not what the Vishnu Purana was discussing.  The idea is probably usable, but how best to word it so that it does not disrupt the flow of the present cited material?
Puranic accounts attribute the current arrangement to VedavyasaVishnu Purana, translation by Horace Hayman Wilson, 1840, Ch IV, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vp/vp078.htm. 
I worked the quote into the section on the four Vedas and provided a dating citation for the Vishnu Purana, which is the source used for the story.  Buddhipriya 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The citation regarding Vedavyasa