Talk:Rigveda/Archive 2

message: I am curious about the new name. I've always seen it as two words and thought that rig defined which veda it was. Danny
In Sanskrit, Rigveda is never written as two different words Rig and veda. The names such as Samaveda, Atharvaveda, Yajurveda are each single words.
:yes, sorry for not moving the old talkpage. It is a single tatpurusha compound. In English, *praise-knowledge would maybe be counted as two words (an apposition), but in Sanskrit, as in German *Lobwissen, it is counted as a single word, under a single accent. See Talk:Rig_Veda#Rigveda_or_Rig_Veda. If it was two words, it would be inflected, as *ricām veda. dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: the image doesn't show "The Rig Veda", it shows just a printed page with two verses plus Sayana's commentary. There is no reason to show that rather than the actual text, and then on Purusha sukta or something; the same goes for the creation hymn, we can hardly begin showing the full text of individual hymns here. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:The Rig Veda.jpg]]

message: "The Orion" by Tilak is a much more important book on Vedic topics. To speak of "The Arctic Home" by Tilak is to remain fixated on Newton's Alchemy and forget  his physics. MarcAurel 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not the point, the statement you deleted was in the context of extremely far-fetched claims. Tilak is notable for claiming the Aryans came from the North Pole. If he said other, more reasonable things, by all means discuss them, but don't delete other material. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tilak

message: Why are the texts linked to in the article different? I mean, sacred-text's and intratext's ones.
Examples:
sacred-text's edition of Book 6 has 75 hymns, and intratext's has 84.
And so on.
Hymn 54 of Book 6 is different:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv06054.htm vs.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/SAN0010/_PE9.HTM
I have also sent an email to intratext asking this question.
--Imz 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: their hymn count is completely garbled. I assume they used some broken automatization to break up the text. It is correct up to 2.16. 2.17 breaks off at verse 5, and "2.18" is really 2.17 6-9a. The link is worthless, and I'll remove it now. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in texts 

message: Just got curious if it's not also the oldest text in any Indo-European language? If not, which one is? deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was way off; the earliest datable I-Ir words I am aware of appear as the names Suriias and Marutta as the names of foreign gods in a Kassite document dated to ~1760 BCE.  I believe this is the earliest example of any IE, not just I-Ir, but I cannot say definitively.  The famous Mitanni treaty, between the Mitannian pretender, Matiwazza and the Hittite monarch, Shupiluliumas (my favorite ancient name) is dated to ~1360 BCE (I had a couple correct digits) and has mi-it-ra, u-ru-ua-na, in-dar, and na-sa-at-ti-ia; i.e., Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya.  Had to pull out my old thesis to find this.--Almijisti 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest text of Indo-Iranian languages 

message: Please refer to the following paragraph, 'Kazanas (2000) in a polemic .. diametral opposition to views in mainstream historical linguistics, and supports the controversial Out of India theory,.. ' Let me point out that 'from within India' theory is even more controversial. Aupmanyav 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? "Out of India" and "from within India" are the same thing. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversial 'Out of India' theory 

message: * The introduction "Rigveda, a tatpurush compound of etc...." appears vague. Its as though a knowledgeable audience is being addressed. What, whose, when, where etc. are addressed quite later in the introduction. Are such kind of introductions in fashion or what ? I propose to change it to a more conventional one like the one for Avesta.IAF
**how is it vague? Do you mean, overly specific? This is the brief bracket explaining the Sanskrit term, too short for a separate "etymology" section, and too central to be banished to a footnote imho. I see nothing wrong with it. As always, if people don't know what a tatpurusha is, and would like to find out, they can click on the link. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is your problem? If you don't want to know what a tatpurusha is, simply ignore it. We cannot taylor articles according to what you think people are looking for. You have some cleanup ahead of you if you want to see this through, buddy. I suggest you begin by removing the superfluous Devanagari from all India-related articles. Feel free to come back here once you have cleansed :Category:Hindu deities of such redundancy of no interest to high-schoolers. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: It is good that we are updating the editions.  For editions that I cannot verify directly I am referring to Wendy Doniger's reiew which appears in her book cited in the article.  I notice that some of the dates and titling she gives differ from those in the article.  If any of the dates or edition details differ from what others may know, could you please add additional citations rather than removing what I give to Doniger?  If we add multiple variants we can reconcile any differences over the next week. Buddhipriya 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of the bibliography of editions 

message: The first hymns of Rgveda were composed in Southern Afghanistan according to Dr Rajesh Kochar (The Vedic People, Orient Longman, 2000). His arguments based on relationship of Vedic Sanskrit with Avestan language, location of Ephedra plants (Soma), names of the rivers etc were very logical. As Indo-Aryans gradually movesd east towards Punjab bulk of Vedas were composed in that region.Kumarrao 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: A few months ago a change to History of mathematics asserted that this work was relevant to the history, yet there is no mention of it on this article.  Is there some truth to the anons edit? John Vandenberg 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathematics 

message: Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

message: This recent set of changes has removed key information and sources (yes I know about the dating section, it depended on sources that were in the intro).  Besides this loss of key sources, I feel that it is important to mention the dating information in the introduction, as the age of this work is of more global importance than its religious importance to some.  It's approach 2am here so I cant tackle this right now. John Vandenberg 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No other page on a religious text has the dating section in the beginning section. For you, perhaps the dating is more important, but that is hardly a majority opinion. As for the sources, we can emrely move them to another section.Bakaman 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually those references are in the dating section.Bakaman 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct; the mention of "India: What Can It Teach Us" and "Mallory" do not exist in the version you reverted to (repeatedly); also it removed mention of "Avesta".  Yes, we could move the sources into a section or sub-article, but I expect that serious contributors who think the content should be repositioned ensure that the sourcing is moved rather than reverting to sub-standard version. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is crucial. That's why there is a section on dating. But don't take the word of a heathen Hindoo, here's a link. No other religious text has a large clunky out-of-place "dating" tidbit in the beginning, there's little logic in adding one here. But Hinduism (in the words of your immortal friend) is problematic, eh?Bakaman 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is right to use an argument of the sort Bible:Christianity::Rigveda:Hinduism and concluding that dating information should not be mentioned in the lead. Hinduism is not centered on any particular book(s) like Christianity or Islam might be. The article on Daozang does mention dating in lead, so does Analects and Pali Canon. Dating information of Rigveda is extremely important because of its several firsts (e.g. among the oldest text in any Indo-European language). deeptrivia (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also it is important to note that most other religious works are not true to their historical roots.  For example, the Bible (Christianity) contains the Torah (Judaism) which is a melting pot of written works (see Documentary hypothesis).  The article on the Oral Torah includes dating information in the first sentence, to the level of accuracy that is possible.  Codex Cairensis and Dead sea scrolls, being an actual manuscripts, also do.  I am open to discussion on the placement, and there are probably sub-articles that can be written on this topic; my main concern was the removal of sources pertinent to the dating of this literary work. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bakaman is well known for this type of trolling. But if there are any serious suggestions for reasonably re-arranging the lead, we can by all means discuss them, of course. The Rigveda is a rather marginal text in the huge body scripture of modern Hinduism (the Baghavad Gita is orders of magnitude more relevant), its main notability is due to its being the most ancient of them all. The intro has been very carefully optimized by WP:LEAD, and drive-by trolling will not be sufficient grounds for changing it. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating information 

message: I am here quoting from a Wiki article 'Indian Astronomy' : 
:"Jacobi (1909) has argued that in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda the sun was in Phalguni, and in the Sankhayana and Gobhila Grhyasutra the Full moon was in Bhadrapada during the summer solstice, which would have occurred at 4500-2500 BCE.[44] Jacobi and Tilak have both noted that the terms of the naksatras Mula (root), Vicrtau (dividers) and Jyestha (oldest) suggest that these names originated from a time when Mula marked the beginning of the year, i.e. about 4500-2500 BCE.[45] Tilak has also noted that the two week long pitrs period after the full moon in Bhadrapada occurred at the beginning of the pitryana, which would have been true at about 4500-2500 BCE.[46]."
The article 'Rgveda says :
:"Some writers have traced astronomical references[2] in the Rigveda dating it to as early as 4000 BC[14], a date well within the Indian Neolithic. Claims of such evidence remain controversial. [15] but are a key factor in the development of the Proto-Vedic Continuity theory."
Jacobi should be mentioned in this passage, because Jacobi was the first to mention this date and provided some argument as well, while Balakrishnan has no argument and yet his view is cited, just because he has managed to put it on a website ! -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that's fine. Just make sure that you cite the entire book, not just "see Jacobi". The truth is that such "evidence" does not "remain controversial", but is completely debunked. Any date in the 4th millennium or earlier may be religious mysticism, raving lunacy, or political ideology, but in any case has nothing to do with history. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rgveda and Jacobi 

message: You have done well to trim the boring grammatical detail at the beginning of this article which must have repulsed most of general readers, as user:IAF had earlier remarked. I had a purpose in expanding this boring introduction which has been missed by you : the term  ऋग्वेद is not a compound of +veda as this article wrongly informs , but of +veda (cf. sanskrit-English Dictionary of Monier-Williams ).
Moreover  or  are not separable forms which could form a tatpurusha sāmasa, but are sandhi forms of  ; hence  is a tatpurusha samāsa of .The form   becomes  when followed by a non-vocalised syllable, and becomes  when followed by a vocalised syllable such as 've-' in this case. 
The verb  is the root of 'archanā' which means prayer ;  is a special form of archanā, distinguished by special rules of prununciation laid down in . If these rules are not followed and  hymns are pronounced as normal sanskrit, the  will not be called  but archanā. Many mantras are common to different Vedas, with no difference in spelling, but in  a mantra is called  and in Yajurveda the same mantra will be called a yajus and in Sāmaveda that very mantra will become a sāman. 'Mantra' is the common term for all these. 'Mantra', moreover, may be used in non-Vedic contexts too.
Such boring details are unsuitable at the beginning, but ought to be put somewhere either in this article or in some linked article, because most people do not have a proper understanding of these definitions. There is no need to cite additional authorities because whatever I have mentioned is explicitly mentioned by Sir Monier-Williams in SED.  -Vinay Jha 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Etymology of 'Rgveda' 

message: Instead of Western dating of an Indian text which don't consider Indian Hindu view , I modified so as to accomodate both sided dating, but Dab is deleting it for which he is being criticized even by other admins. Dab stop being Supremist in this controversial subject. I am being neutral to accomodate western & Indian dating. And, as an admin I expect the same from you. Please note that we are dealing with Indian subject , so Indian view also require addition in the same way you are trying to impose western dating. WIN 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ENC. There is no "western" vs. "Hindu" view. There are academic estimates vs. pop culture myths. Actual Hindu tradition does not date the Vedas at all, since they are eternal (shruti, apaurusheyatva). Some Hindu texts (Vishnu Purana) "date" the three Vedas by saying they were derived from a single Original Veda in the Treta Yuga, which according to some other sources would translate to some 2 million years ago. This may be discussed at Vedas, but it has nothing to do with the Rigveda in particular.  You are not excused from citing reliable academic sources for a claimed "view" just because it is "Indian". dab (𒁳) 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: interesting -- you could write a dissertation about it. Once you publish it, we can mention your opinion as a minority view. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: still no sources, then? dab (𒁳) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "totally untenable"? Based on the sources discussed and laughed out of court at Talk:Out of India theory, or did Rajaram organize another conference since the 2006 one? --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had warned above, DAB started making fun of me instead of trying to discuss the issue. This attitude of poking fun at others is not healthy for an encyclopaedia. Vinay Jha  20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of RigVeda in Introduction 

message: moved to User_talk:Vinay Jha. Please don't abuse article talkpages for private exchanges. Wikipedia is not an internet chat forum. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion here was about the dating of Rgveda and not about any personal topic, which DAB wrongly removed from this talk page, because he did not want Wikipedians should know the problems and controversies in this field, so that a particular view could be presented as the only view . DAB has no right to delete active discussions related to improvement of the main article ; he is acting like a self-appointed monarch of Wikipedia. -Vinay Jha 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions asked to [[User:Vinay Jha|Vinay Jha]] about Veda Dating

message: The Vedas were written down for the first time at the end of first millenium AD, when scholars anticipated a decrease in the willingness to preserve the Vedas as Shruti alone. But the content of all the Vedas had been exactly fixed during the Vedic period itself by means of ANUKRAMANIKĀ which listed all verses in proper order. ANUKRAMANIKĀ cannot be challenged as far as their authenticity is concerned; they are referenced in ancient texts. Hence if you have read somewhere that the "The Vedas are possibly changed", the author is certainly distorting facts so as to push some personal agenda or hypothesis.
:I agree and respect the authenticity of the Vedas, as I too have read about the various levels of pandits and how everyone enhances with reciting the verses to the utmost quality. 
::But then why there are difference about many topics, Origin etc?BalanceRestored 10:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no appreciable "difference". Expert opinion is practically unanimous. There are always crackpots who like to know better than the experts, but they usually stand no chance in academic debate, and should be ignored for the purposes of Wikipedia by our WP:UNDUE policy. There are people who like to create the impression that there is a "controversy", but if you look around, they are unable to produce evidence that there is a controversy. Just saying "we disagree" isn't a controversy. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the updates, I think I am too early in all this to really comment on things. There are various critics who speak different things, thus causing the doubt. Do you have any source that has explained in depth with regards to these discussions?BalanceRestored 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANUKRAMANIKĀ

message: The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies:
*Oberlies (p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100. 
*:this isn't Oberlies' own opinion, but his report on academic consensus. The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go, and is intended to include all reasonable opinions.
what are our sources for  estimates incompatible with the mainstream?
*N. Kazanas, A new date for the Rgveda  Philosophy and Chronology, (2000) ed. G C Pande & D Krishna, special issue of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (June, 2001) claims 3100 BC
**Kazanas has been peer-reviewed has been allowed into JIES without peer-review (see Talk:Nicholas_Kazanas#Kazanas_in_JIES), which is why he cite him. The reviews were devastating, reviewers are unanimous that he has no case, and hence he is duly treated as fringe on Wikipedia. 
*there are various Voice of India publications which have been discussed in scholarly literature, but not as academic contributions, but as part of the Hindutva phenomenon (e.g. Alan Sokal,"Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?" in: Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, Routledge 2006).
**Shrikant Talageri doesn't state an estimate, but he makes it clear he considers 1500 BC too late. He hasn't been reviewed afaik, except (devastatingly) by Witzel (who had been attacked in the book)
**N. S. Rajaram claims 4000 BC. favourably mentioned by Klaus Klostermaier in a  seminar presentation at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) University of London on 21, January 1998. Since 1998, Rajaram has been utterly discredited as a dishonest fraud.
That's it. The Voice of India crowd plus Kazanas. Not a single Sanskritist. Not a single Historian. Not a single Indo-Europeanist. JIES with Kazanas has gone out of its way to make clear in detail why this is rejected to anyone who cares to read it. Your best bet will be Klaus Klostermaier, who actually has a PhD (in philosophy). These are the only sources outside the Oberlies "mainstream range" I am aware of that are at all quotable, and for this reason we do quote them, as fringe views per WP:UNDUE. If you have other sources that have not been mentioned so far, please do add them. If you have no other sources, I would ask you to drop the topic until you do. It turns out that this whole "new date" discussion is an artefact of Hindu nationalist propaganda, initiated in 1997 by Frawley's and Rajaram's Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization. The discussion doesn't seem to stretch further back, and while it has made a stir in Hindutva circles, it remained restricted to nationalist literature. Academia didn't even react to this stuff, except for Witzel and Parpola, who debunked Talageri and Rajaram in 2000-2001. Kazanas was granted a platform in JIES 2002-2003, he failed to convinced anyone, and since 2003, the case has been closed. We can say that nationalist mysticist ideas were reviewed and rejected by academia 2000-2003, but that's as far as we can go.
dab (𒁳) 13:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for dating estimates

message: In this article (Rgveda), it is mentioned in the beginning "the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700–1100 BCE" and the citation refers to Max Müller, which is wrong. Max Müller talked of 1200 BC for the date of bulk of Rgveda, and 1500 BC for a handful of most archaic elements in it. One editor says  "The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies" (cf. DAB's talk above), but in the main article Max Müller is mentioned instead of Oberlies for this date. DAB admits "The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go" , yet he says it is "the mainstream estimate" based on "academic consensus" (cf. talk above). How an estimate can be "mainstream estimate" and "academic consensus"  if it goes against the opinion of "most people" ? DAB is citing a WP:FRINGE theory in the name of mainstream. Since DAB deleted my well sourced contribution made to this article (about etymology), I do not want to engage in an edit war with him who makes it a prestige issue and abuses me. I simply ask him to rectify the error. Refer 1700 BC to Oberlies in the introduction, and 1500 BC or 1200 BC to earlier indologists. 1700 BC is referred to Oberlies later in the article, but there is serious error in the introduction. My real issue, however, is something more significant.
Mohenjodaro met a violent end around 1750 BC, but other cities were abandoned without any war. Earlier, Aryan Invasion was thought to be the cause, but now a majority of mainstream academics are favouring the idea of a gradual migration instead of a violent attack. Even Witzel supports this view. Some people have asumed that Harappan civilisation ended in 1900 BC, so that 1700 BC could be proposed for upper date of Rgveda (1900 BC is actually the lower limit of  C-14 dating at certain sites, upper limit being around 2200 BC at most places, but very few layers have been carbon-dated and there are many layers below and above carbon-dated layers; hence 2450-1750 BC has been accepted as the period of hitherto excavated Indus culture on the basis of stratigraphic analyses by experts, and many layers lies submerged in groundwater which may push the upper date before 2450 BC). But mainstream archaeologists agree that the twin cities finally ended around 1750 BC. An upper date of 1700 BC for Rgveda implies that the Rgvedic Aryans entered India when Harappan towns were being destroyed or abandoned, which hints at Aryan Invasion Theory (my source for dating in this para is excavation report of Archaological Survey of India published by Srikrishna Ojha).
Oberlies and some others tried to give the RV an extension of two centuries due to the problems posed by Linear-B &c (e.g, Hittite) which I tried to explain. Oberlies &c are not mad, they have reason for extending the upper limit of Rgveda, but this extension conflicts with the accepted date for the end of Harappan cities. This is the biggest problem of Rgvedic dating. Difference between earlier dating (1500 BC) and recent dating (1700 BC) is itself a proof of the controversy I am pointing to, but some peole wrongly believe there is no controversy at all. Oberlies &c are hoping for a consensus by extending Rgvedic dating by 200 years, and we should be interested in learning the reasons which compel these Indologists to extend the date of Rgveda, after 150 years of consensus on 1500 BC ? Had there been no urban culture in the Indus Valley, modern linguists would have extended the upper limit of Rgveda to nearly 2200-2400 BC , so compelling are the reasons calling for an extension of Rgvedic dating. I do not want anyone to cite unreliable or wrong theories. I just want to put the facts straight and try to understand the problem more deeply : this deeper understanding need not be reflected in the articles in detail, but one may put it in  summarised form so that readers get a more realistic account. I have a few suggestions.
(1)Cite Max Müller, (2) then cite Oberlies, and then discuss in brief the reasons behind this 200-year extension, and ask whether this extension has solved all anomalies or not ? If not, then give a brief list of principal anomalies and controversies which remain to be solved. This is all I want. I never called for giving alternatte dates. Besides citing two approaches to dating (Max Müller and Oberlies),there are two more approaches, which are currently not favoured by mainstream academics : (3) equating Harappans with Vedic culture on account of fire altars found in Kalibangan and other reasons, and (4) Vedic culture preceded Harappan culture (there are many types of views which fall in this category, none of which has succeded in gaining academic consensus). These minority views need not be mentioned in Wiki, but the anomalies which are left unexplained in mainstream theories ought to be outlined somewhere. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Omit fringe opinions, but do not suppress facts even if they do not fit into your theory. Give the main theory, give arguments and facts in its favour, and mention remaining problems to be solved. As for citations, there are many citations in sources already mentioned in this article on Rgveda. E.g., read Kazanas : he asks how the Rgvedic Aryans settled on the the banks of Sarasvati centuries after it had dried up? Some of ideas expressed by Kazanas may seem to be too removed from prevailing mood, but he has mentioned many well sourced facts which need to be explained, or at least acknowledged and mentioned. There is no hurry. Attemts to explain away fire-altars of Kalibangan as ovens are as ludicrous as Rajaram's horseplay. I can give a list of principal anomalies in present theory which are facts, not opinions. It is wrong to infer that I some some hidden agenda. Those who suppress facts have agenda.  --Vinay Jha  15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a site to look at. Citation machine. cite your sources. Also link to diffs is you believe there are discrepancies in the statemnts made by users.Bakaman 03:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bakasuprman! This Citation Machine is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I never needed such machines, I had better sources, but I wanted to avoid any type of conflict with anyone, as far as possible. But if needed, I will take a resort to approprate means, but my first aim is to not to create a dispute but to improve the article without a dispute with any editor. -Vinay Jha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as long as you cite academic sources, not your own opinion, you will have no problem. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: sigh, Vinay, I asked you for sources besides Kazanas (who is already mentioned). You embark on another rambling post, and conclude with "E.g., read Kazanas". Wth? Why not simply state that you have no academic sources. Look, I am familiar with this debate. I know your position is not defensible in peer-reviewed literature. Kazanas is your best bet by far, because he was exceptionally waived peer-review, to forestall accusations of "dogma" or "censorship" that cranks always resort to once they are debunked and fail to rouse interest. That means, Kazanas was allowed to publish his stuff exceptionally, in spite of the fact that he wouldn't have passed peer-review. The reviews were instead held publicly, to make plain why the position is indefensible. Read JIES 2002. I know you have no sources. You know you have no sources. Why continue this discussion? If you can cite a mainstream "list of problems to be solved", everyone will be happy. Nobody claims we know everything. But as long as you keep referring to clowns like Kazanas & friends, it is clear that you are not interested in fair academic debate, and are simply trying to create the false appearance that such fringe views have a credibility that they simply do not have. I am sorry, but that's how things stand. We couldn't change this even if it was you who was satisfied with it, and me that was unhappy about it. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions

message: On Talk:Abecedare , DAB has said that I (wrongly) claim   for verse, while Monier-Williams gives  . DAB is right, MW certainly forgot to mention , but it is mentioned  13 times in Rgveda : 1.164.39 ; 2.3.7 ; 5.6.5 ; 5.27.4 ; 5.64.1 ; 5.64.4 ; 6.16.47 ; 8.27.1 ; 8.27.5 ; 9.73.5 ; 10.105.8 ; 10.165.5 ; 10.71.11 (the last being ). In comparison,  in its all its variations occurs only 9 times. I may cite many secondary sources too, in which  has been translated . MW accomplished a great work, but if there are some lapses I should not be blamed for not knowing the Vedas.
I have answered DAB's question. Now will he please inform me why two forms  and   were used in the Rgveda, instead of one, and what is the difference in meanings ?  This question is pertinent to the present article, in which correct grammatical forms of   /  and their correct meanings ought to be mentioned.   -   Vinay Jha 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VJ, I begin to doubt you know any Sanskrit at all. Fist of all, the IAST is   (ऋच्), not   (*ऋछ्). Second, MW does, in fact, have  (ऋच), but this occurs only in compounds. Your  is an inflected form, viz., the instrumental. Now, please, I appreciate that this was a well-meant contribution of yours, but please don't waste my time with stuff like this. Consult a grammar of Vedic Sanskrit. This is eminently offtopic. The term for 'verse' is  , plural  . If you are unfamiliar with Vedic grammar, I advise you to refrain from WP:SYN based on the original text, and consult concordances and translations instead. Forms of   occur 20 times in the RV, viz., as  (home exercise: identify them).  --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had deliberately not mentioned that not only MW, but native lexicographers also do not regard  (Indians habitually write ch for च् , and chh for छ् ) as a separate word. I had indicated above that these grammatical forms belong to the same word  /  , oneness was indicated by slash, yet DAB says now I do not know any Sanskrit at all. I had real doubts upon DAB's knowledge of Sanskrit grammar which was evident in wrong etymology of Rgveda (because he was not correcting it in spite of requests, cf. above), and that is why I wanted him to take interest in grammar (I politely invited him to semantics, not to tease him, cf. his talk page, but he again starts oblique remarks). Some Wikipedians have a policy of biting newcomers  . DAB certainly possesses some grammatical book, but his habit of quoting from dubious secondary or tertiary sources will not go : He says  occur in RV, but  does not occur in RV even once, the other forms occur not 20 but 22 times as I had said above (13+9), including two special forms which were derived from the same root and which I leave as a homework for DAB, because his "mainstream scholars" mentioned only 20. This discussion is really not useful for this article and I leave it, because Abecedare has asked me not to stretch any discussion towards technicalities irrelevant for an encyclopedia (I did not begin this discussion). -Vinay Jha  19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: you make me laugh. you started this discussion because you insisted on inserting a wrong form. And now you pretend you knew stuff all along. Rgbhis occurs in 2.35.12d (but maybe you are using some mystical secret recension, of course. or perhaps need to learn about visarga and allophony). First you waste my time by blathering about unsourced speculation. Then you prance around with legal threats. Then you waste my time because you are unable to cite forms properly. And I haven't heard a word of apology yet. VJ, your wikistatistics so far: constructive contribution to Wikipedia: zero.  disruptive impact: astounding. dab (𒁳) 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vinay, I've placed a request on your page and dab, I also request you to please tone down and stop responding in kind.  Its getting tiring for the rest of us.  Both should stop peppering otherwise educated and illuminating talk with barbs against each other.  For all VJ's faults, please consider that he is only a month old here.  Regardless of how confused he may come across as, we should tread cautiously and patiently with him.  Sarvagnya 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not retort to taunts. There is difference in traditional and Western method of interpreting the Vedas. I generally use padapātha indexes for counting which break Rgbhis as rk- and not as rc- . Forms based on rkk- occur 19 times in Rgveda, and pose semantic problems in some cases, often accentuated by differences in various manuscripts (e.g,  given as vimimāna in some and mīyamāna in others by Sāyana once). Vedic scholars, therefore, class every single instance separately, and two words are classed separately even if a slighest difference in accent is marked, because these differences often cause changes in meanings. Structure is more important than semantic similarity. If it is neglected, total forms will double, but traditional classification of Vedic words does not follow this pattern. Full Stop. -Vinay Jha 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that makes sense if your aim is to memorize the text without interest in its meaning. Which is respectable of course; without this fixation on form over meaning, the text could not have been preserved orally. It's still hilarious to claim MW "forgot" to list the instrumental form of rc. Look, in your brighter moments, I don't doubt you could make useful contributions to vyakarana, if you can wrap your head around Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You know where to find the necessary information, you've been pointed there often enough, all you now need to do is get down from the high horse and show a willingness to learn (which is something that never stood anyone in bad stead). dab (𒁳) 07:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: whatever. if you want to cite Sayana, cite Sayana, no problem. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rch / {{IAST|ṛch}}  .  versus .  Rchā {{IAST|ṛchā}} 

message: It seems clear to this uneducated outsider that both users Vinay Jha and Dbachmann/dab...
* ...are knowledgeable about this subject and have much to contribute that is of value;
* ...are intelligent and capable of reason;
* ...are contributing in good faith. Note that I am not merely  assuming good faith here; I have seen evidence of it. 
What is not clear is why the two of you are apparently unable to discuss this article without resorting to  incivility and  personal attacks aimed at one another. I would like the two of you to please consider, and acknowledge, that the points I have raised above apply to each of you. Vinay Jha, I feel that the wikipedia project will benefit enormously from your contributions; please take the time to familiarise yourself with its  principles and guidelines because this will help us all to work together. And dab, while Vinay Jha is learning how wikipedia works, please  be patient and  polite towards him. Thank you both for your efforts. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Sarvagnya 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also endorse these comments. Buddhipriya 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, excepting the "capable of reason". VJ has shown abundant evidence that he is not, at least not in a sense of "reason" established since the 17th century. It is interesting to meet a scholar steeped in a medieval mindset online, but I believe I cannot be expected to give random people a crash course in three centuries of intellectual history. If you can be bothered to read the "Rch / ṛch . versus . Rchā ṛchā" section above attentively, you will recognize that VJ buries a staggering amount of dishonesty in his loquacious statements. I did point VJ to Wikipedia policy, in a patient and friendly manner. He chose not to respect it. At this point, I do not feel WP:BITE still applies. And after VJ's indulgence in legal threats and demonstrably false accusations against me, I do not feel too disposed towards WP:EQ anymore, either. In my book, editors who show renitence, bad faith and unwillingness to collaborate of the scale exhibited by VJ belong banned, period, no hard feelings. An editor who cannot wrap his mind around the simple concept of WP:NOR has no place here, it's as simple as that. I won't campaign for such a ban, though. Still, I would ask you to recognize that I have been far more lenient than could reasonably expected of me, but I am not willing to waste more time on this user. If he makes valid edits, so much the better. If makes flawed edits, I will revert them. Discussion with this editor is futile. If you have time to spend, by all means, do mentor him, and maybe you will get him to contribute constructively in half a year or so. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for WP:NOR, I have tangible proofs of it in DAB's edits which also shows his preference of pseudoscience (cf. Talk:Hinduism, Clarification by Vinay Jha), although he falsely claims to be a champion of reason (unfortunately, he does not know that he supported OR and pseudoscience because he is totally ignorant of Surya Siddhanta , yet showing him off as an expert). He declares to apply WP:BITE to me (so as to make me leave Wiki) and he has now carried this campaign of abusing to Edit Summary of Hinduism, where I corrected a wrong citation (yama); I added the explanation in Talk there (DAB does not read a source and quotes wrongly). I had wrongly hoped I will be able to calm him down by tolerating his abuses. I do not care his threats of WP:BITE and abuses, but I will not follow his example by abusing : such persons are not my model. If he reverts my wrong edit I will thank him, but he has today demonstrated a lack of intellectual capability needed for good editing in Hinduism which is explained in Talk there (yama). Had he spared me from this useless abusing campaign, I would have devoted my time to editing and surveying (and learning) Wiki.  -Vinay Jha 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view

message: The article  Rgveda  mentions "hymns dedicated to the gods". All the hymns of Rgveda are dedicated to some "devatā", and not a single hymn is dedicated to any deva or devi. Devatā  is the feminine form of  Daivata (masc., neut.), but in modern Hindi, devatā  is used for all genders. Daivata is purely a Sanskrit word, not used in Hindi. MW translates devatā  as godhead, divinity (abstract and concrete) (but idol in post-Vedic literature).  Later Vedic texts used devatā  for sense organs as well (MW cites ŚBr; Yājñvalkya in BrU gives a detailed account of 33 devatās  which included the senses too, among other things). Keeping reliable sources in view, "hymns dedicated to the abstract and concrete godheads/divinities" is preferable to "hymns dedicated to the gods" (DAB's version) and "hymns dedicated to the deities" (IAF's version). I think editors will not object to this suggestion. -Vinay_Jha 08:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what is this? we have a full article on Rigvedic deities, which is linked, where such details can be addressed. Rigvedic hymns are addressed both to individual gods or goddesses and to groups of gods (Vishvedevas). You apparently fail to understand the English term "god" if you think it means anything other than "godhead, divinity (abstract and concrete)", see god (word) for details. look, this is  a matter of stylistics, not content. "hymns dedicated to the deities" isn't wrong, but it is sylistically inferior. "hymns dedicated to the gods" is perfectly fine. I know we are only discussing this because IAF is trying to make the WP:POINT that the Rigveda is pantheistic or monotheistic, which is simply not the case. If you want to make such a point, make it up front, putting your references on the table, and not by oblique revert-wars. dab (𒁳) 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was adapting an idiom. But feel free to play the race card and send in the PC police to hang me by my guts. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: , huh. "derived from ". Man, you wouldn't pass a "Sanskrit 101" beginners' course. This wouldn't matter if you could refrain from passing yourself off as an expert whose students are "heads of department". This is really sad. I do hope these are hardware store departments. I am glad you feel " no point in discussing anything", how about you go back to writing articles on various gotras, then. If you really cannot bear your contributions being scrutinised and debunked, go get your own blog. It's free. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for failing me, esp in a less rude manner this time. I am here citing two verses(there are other examples too) from Rgveda in your favour : 10.15.8  and  10.165.5, in which  Wilson rightly translated rcā as "by our hymns"(instr.). I was really suspicious of your knowledge because you are sitting silently for five days upon Buddhipriya's substitution of my correct version with a wrong version (cf. 'Brahmin:etymology'  in  Talk:Brahmin), (Buddhipriya wrongly believes that first and last both syllables in "Brahamana" were accented at the same time). Neither you nor Buddhipriya answered to my post there, and the wrong version remains in the main article. Moreover, Buddhipriya charged me of WP:OR and dishonesty (citing falsely ). If you are really interested in accuracy, why was I wrongly elbowed out of that article, with wrong charges ? You can check from Rgvedic index. But no, these pages are properties of the chosen few, and I must chant gotra-names, sell hardware or go to blogs (i.e., leave Wikipedia). Thanks. -Vinay_Jha 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: trying to weasel our way out again are we. I thought you believed that "instrumental form is actually rcena"? Whatever, I'm tired of your games, do what you must. dab (𒁳) 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had I given a wrong etymology of "Brāhamana", you must have reverted it, but a superior soul made this mistake, hence you are shirking away. Nobody else in Wiki, as far as I know, is going to correct this error. OK, over and all. -Vinay_Jha 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devatā  :  neither ''deity''  nor  ''god'' 

message: Before anybody brings it back, explain what it was doing in the lead.  Lead is meant to be a summary of the most important things that follow in the article.  Linguistic and 'cultural' affinities to Avesta are not explained anywhere else in the article and the presence of the same in the lead is perplexing.  Also explain, why we have to bend over backwards to squeeze in the bit about Andronovo.  If it is the consensus that PII is/was associated with andronovo, then there is no need to qualify it.  If it isnt, then we need to present both/all views.  either way, andronovo in the lead is superfluous.. Sarvagnya 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD again.  Your assumption, that a lead is only a summary, is false.  It also functions as an introduction, such as establishing a context.  The Rgveda is a philologically important text beyond its place in Hinduism (see the second section above this one), which means that its relevance to Indo-European issues needs to be mentioned. ("The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.") The material is adumbrated in the "Dating" section but, as also noted (this time immediately above), this is the section most in need of an overhaul. You are welcome to contribute constructively, rather than divagating with requests for references and waiting for them to be provided before deleting the passage you objected to, effectively taking it upon yourself to decide that others' time was yours to waste. rudra (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say that I had a problem with the lead functioning as an introduction to establish context while at the same time providing a summary of the article?  If anything, that is precisely what I've been asking for and I said so clearly on your talk page.  That the Rigveda has a philological importance beyond its place in Hinduism isnt news to me.. and the article in its present state leaves no room for any such illusions.  That however, is all the more reason to explain the context in which the avesta and andronovo finds itself in the lead.  If it has to do with dating, then say so.  The dating section (a whole section) doesnt so much as make a passing mention of the avesta.  And in any case, the lead does mention that the dating is based on philological and linguistic evidence (which is where Avesta/andronovo and all that comes into the picture anyway, i suppose)...  look.. I am not averse to dumping the couple of sentences I removed into the dating section.. but what good would it do?  They will still keep sticking out.  And my apologies for using the {cn}} tag last time when I should perhaps have used {clarify}}.. but I thought my message on your talk page clarified that.  In any case, I cant imagine that I have wasted too much of your precious time considering that "utterly and completely uncontroversial" statements shouldnt be hard to source at all.   Sarvagnya 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it belongs in the lead is that the linguistic and cultural similarities between the Yasna and the Rgveda strongly suggest that the Rgveda was composed in a time when the cultures which composed them were still fairly close, perhaps even in contact, and which was not particularly long after the Indo-Iranian period.  This has implications not just for the dating of the Rgveda, but also for our understanding of the cultural and geographic milieu in which the Rgveda was composed - not to mention wider questions regarding the origin and evolution of the Indo-European languages and the culture associated with their speakers.  Look, I agree that at some stage we need an appropriate section dealing with all this, but given the importance of the Rgveda to Hinduism and Indian culture more generally, these topics often raise sensitivies which aren't easily dealt with, making writing a detailed section a somewhat unappealing proces - the section would have to discuss, amongst other things, the "Origins of the Vedic people" controversy which causes no end of grief here.  But surely it's better to have a couple of sentences in the lead even if we don't have a detailed section - because as I've tried to explain above the information does belong in the lead?   If it's just a question of rewording it to give more context, that should be achievable, particularly if you have any suggestions.  -- Arvind (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the bit Sarvagnya removed are perfectly mainstream, undisputed, and highly relevant. "Sensitivities" have nothing to do with it (or I invite you to go over to Talk:Muhammad and plead for the removal of the infamous images because they "raise sensitivities"...).  If you have suggestions for rephrasing within WP:LEAD, you are most welcome to propose them. dab (𒁳) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, dab... if you actually read what I was saying, I was trying to explain to Sarvagnya (1) why the information belongs in the lead and (2) why the information is only in the lead and not in a detailed section in the article (that would require a degree of refactoring which is nearly impossible to achieve given the atmosphere on this article, unless someone is willing to spend several weeks doing little else) -- Arvind (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta,deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo culture of ca. 2000 BCE." 
That's about as compact as it gets. Details on this should go to the "Dating and historical reconstruction" section. It is also correct that the references should be cited in the body, not in the lead. I have made an edit to this effect. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added a reference to Bryant, whose work I think is spot on as far as the Vedic-Avestan relationship goes. -- Arvind (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The artcle could have referred to an authoritative review book: "The Vedic People" by Rajesh Kochar, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1999, in which he supported the Afghanisan location for Rig Veda and the strong affinities with Avesta. Also see: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: According to " Traditions and Encounters A global Perspective of the Past" the Rigveda was written from 1400 to 900 bce. they also refer to it as Rig Veda.
69.105.108.158 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds reasonable? This is pretty much what we are saying in this article too? --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  things to consider 

message: re this edit, I fail to see which part of the terminus ad quem article is supposed to justify the fiddling with the date range given. Your change to "2000–1500 BCE" is unjustified, and unjustifiable. Witzel is perfectly correct, the 14th century is a terminus ad quem. This is what we had all along, the 14th century lies squat in the mainstream range of "1500 to 1000". You aren't contributing anything here. 
--dab (𒁳) 19:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wait, you were confusing ante and ad? Try to get a grasp of what your source is saying before lecturing about things, ok? Saves everyone time. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The date (1400 BC) and the location as provided by Rajesh Kochar are the most reasonable. See the reference: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/306/contrasarav.htm Kumarrao (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent prancing around with the date

message: there are many conspicuous things, or we can also say folk tales about rigveda . Rof and Bernof when tried to translate Rugved for the very first time in English, they died and the work was continued by Max Mueller, he was originally German, but came to England, and East India company financed him , for missinterpreting the translation of rugveda, It is also heared that he made Two sopis of rugved , one was the original, and the other was to miss guide Indians,  many people also say that the deccan college is having some letters written by East India company to Maxmuller regarding the payments made towards him, for the work, and the answeres given by maxmuller to those letters,  guyes if anybody is having any sort of fulll prooof information regarding this please add on this weiki.............   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.151.104 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: It seems that author/approver of this article is not aware of Indian Vedic History especially regarding dating of the writings of the Rigveda. In this article on many places it is written that Rigveda was not written down before 1200 BC. There are numerous references which verifies that Rigveda was written at least before 1200 BC or for that matter even before 2500 BC including. The oldest surviving manuscript may be a matter of investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.88.226 (talk • contribs) 
the date of the oldest MS is, indeed, a matter of investigation. The result of the investigation is: 11th century CE.
You do not appear to be aware of the history of writing in India. The Rigveda was not "written" prior to the Common Era. It was transmitted orally. There is no evidence whatsoever that would place the composition of the earliest origins of the earliest hymns before the mid 2nd millennium BC. The late hymns, the bulk of books 1 and 10, cannot be shown to predate 1200 BC. The redaction of the various collections of hymns into the ten books we have today dates to the 1st millennium BC. This is all properly explained and referenced in the article. You should read it. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I must revise that statement. The oldest Vedic manuscript appears to date to the 11th century, preserved in Nepal. But it happens to be of the Yajurveda, not the Rigveda. The oldest Rigvedic manuscript apparently dates to the 14th century. I believe the oldest complete text dates to the 15th century. Discussion of the age of the manuscripts is irrelevant to the discussion of the age of the text itself. It is undisputed that the text is some 2000 years older than the oldest surviving manuscript. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date, once again

message: * Hettrich, Heinrich: Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rigveda, Würzburg, 2007. http://www.vergl-sprachwissenschaft.phil1.uni-wuerzburg.de/materialien/Materialien%20-%20Lokativ+Dativ.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.82.14 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication, Philology 

message: I request a citation for this exceptional claim. I've tried to find a reliable reference for the claim, but haven't been able to. The best information I have been able to find regarding a limit on the oldest plausible age of the Rig Veda is based on Anatolian rather than Indo-Iranian, specifically, Bryant|2001|pp=266 "If Anatolian is considered an older language than Vedic, and was the first to peel off from the proto-language, and if Anatolian is attested in documents at circa 1900 BCE how can the later Vedic language be older than this date? This, too, is a chronological anchor that reasonably secures the date of the Rgveda to after 1900BCE. However, here we also need to eliminate the possibility that the Anatolian languages might have been much older than the date when they emerge in dateable records, and that they preserved certain archaic features from a hoarier antiquity". Please notice this quote doesn't say the limit is 'certain' just 'reasonably secure'. Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be so kind as to provide a reliable secondary source (with page number please) showing a definite terminus a quo for an IIr separation of 2001BC. (BTW I don't consider glottochronology to produce definite i.e. certain results). Bryant|2001|pg249 (it is his theory that's why I quote him) suggests that the IIr separation could have occurred before 2000BC, the Rigveda composed shortly after this and the dialects remain unchanged until, say 1500-1200BC, or whatever the date of the comparative IIr text is. You can say this is very unlikely to have happened, as Ivan Štambuk did on my talk page, but I don't see how you can be certain. Kind regards ICouldBeWrong (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for editing the text and improving it. I made another 2 edits to the paragraph which are hopefully considered minor, and OK. If so then my primary concern with the article will be addressed. Personally the text 'making it one of the few examples with an unbroken tradition' doesn't make sense to me, maybe it means making it one of the few examples of texts with an unbroken tradition of being used in ceremonies since the Bronze Age. But I'm not sure, and I don't consider this very important. ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation required for claim - 'It is certain that the hymns post-date Indo-Iranian separation of ca. 2000 BC' 

message: :
Found this translation which seems to be more accurate and captures the intended meaning better than others currently in External links section:
http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rv1.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
this is apparently a translation "based on Sayana and Wilson". The Sanskrit is in some weird private format.
The translation isn't useless, but it isn't clear whose translation it is (just Wilson's?) --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: (there are two links in this page that provide external links, which I thought would be more relevant within the article rather than external references; however wikipedia allows me to add weblinks separately on the reference page only- if interested in the links, please copy paste them)
There has been significant discord on the dating issue over the years and the number of objections raised on this page itself is proof of that. Some of the objections raised in this talk page itself, and pertinently, is about how that wikipedia is supposed to present neutral information. 
Most of the information presented in the page is quite non-neutral. The dating issue should be the primary one, because it is the entire cause of the large amount of misinformation in this article, which stems mostly from Western ignorance of the Vedas, and lack of understanding of Sanskrit and its cultural context. (and is the main cause why most of this fabricated history continues to be taught, not only in the Western World but also Indian textbooks, though this is gradually changing.)
The primary cause of this misinformation is one  Max Mueller who is single handedly responsible for distorting the understanding of the Vedas in the nineteenth century, which continues to this day because of Mueller's immense reputation as a scholar. There never was any concrete evidence to its dating between 2000-1500BC, except Mueller's own claim. This claim was largely fabricated. Mueller wished to enforce the Christian calendar's date of the beginning of the world. He also saw it necessary to assert Western Cultural superiority over the East in order to reinforce Western colonial rule. The only way to do this was to invent the Aryan Invasion theory and that the invaders brought the Vedas with them. The main reason this was so well accepted at the time was the linguistic relationships of the Indo-European languages. A simple linguistic link is not sufficient for this theory to hold, as more evidence(discussed later in this entry) has destroyed all credibility of the Aryan Invasion theory, and provides evidence that if anything, a migration happened outwards.
There has been significant discord with Mueller's opinion amongst Indians since the early 20th century, who pointed out its inconsistencies, but lacking command of English, did so in their own languages, which is why it rarely ever reached Western scholars(till in the last twenty-thirty years, as they are being translated). When it did, these claims were dismissed because Western scholars of the time saw their own 'scientific' judgments as superior. One of the luminaries to point out an inconsistency was Bal Gangadhar Tilak who pointed out certain astronomical phenomena in the Rigveda that were 6000-7000 years old. Sri Aurobindo in his Secret of the Vedas(in English!) also points out certain problems, though his tone, like a true yogi's, is modest. Indians who made their voices heard were in a better position to understand their own linguistic heritage, and its cultural contexts. Mueller misinterprets the Vedas as a mythical story about tribals and nature-gods and about 'Light versus Dark'- a completely christian interpretation; the duality of Light versus Dark is never given too much importance in Hinduism. (think of troy, which was considered mythical till its discovery)
David Frawley, an American, addresses most of the issues in the dating of the Rigveda and the validity of the Aryan Invasion theory in his articles(available at www.vedanet.com). The primary need for this kind of academic revision is because a linguistic link is simply not credible, because it never addresses the issue which way the migration happened.
Recent evidence gathered from satellites show that the Saraswati River bed went dry much earlier than 3000BC. In the Rigveda, Saraswati is hailed with immense praise and described as the primary river, not the Ganges which is mentioned only once as a minor river. The Rigveda describes the Saraswati basin as seven times wider than what its dry riverbed is observed by us now. This means that the Rigveda was written much before 3000BC. Much before any of the Egyptian, Mayan, Sumerian or Mesopotamian civilizations. (I hereby am adding a link, to an extremely insightful analysis of the Vedas done by an Indian as early as 1904.)
http://phoenicia.org/rigveda.html
The Indus Valley Civilization was discovered and excavated in the 1920's. Archaeological excavations found no convincing evidence of an invasion driving the indigenous people away(there have been some peculiarities in the topmost layer of this archaeological dig(the least technologically advanced)- like certain corpse groups found dead with hands folded in prayer, and an extremely high radioactive count in the area, possibly a remnant of an ancient radioactive explosion. Pre- 1945, some of the descriptions in other Indian texts were dismissed as gibberish by Western Scholars. Only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the connections seen)
Joykrit (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of the Dating issue and non-Neutrality of Information in the Rigveda wiki

message: Regarding this issue I still believe a mention of the alleged archaeoastrology references in the text warrant a mention. If it doesn't merit inclusion on the basis of being a scholarly topic, then maybe it can still be included on the basis of being a popular opinion held in India. I suggest something like 'Many Hindus believe that the Vedas including the RigVeda pre-date 3102 BC, the date they consider Krishna to have died. Writers outside the mainstream have claimed since the late 19th Century that this date is supported by astronomical observations in the Vedas, and other evidence.' ICouldBeWrong (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indigenous Aryans" debate 

message: speaks about Aryans and their enemies Dasas.  Incorrect.  see "The Historiography of the Concept of 'Aryan' by Romila Thapar in the Book 'India : Historical Beginnings & the Concept of the Aryan'- Publisher - National Book Trust, India.
59.92.63.156 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 59.92.63.156, 7 October 2010 

message: Many citations in wikipedia regarding the antiquity of India do not follow the scientific historical method and often the dates are pure speculations. I refer to books written with the heart and not with the brain of many Indian historians, especially when commenting their sacred texts, and western romantic authors of the XIX century.
To suppose antiquity of the Vedas of 6000 -9000 years the BCE is a nonsense for history that use document written. In this case Vedas became more more ancient than a probable archeologic proto-arian culture. Before of divergence between Greek-Ittiti-Iran-Vedic language. 
It is a speculation like the existence of Atlantis to see Critias in Plato. Or the thesis that it sees Sphinx like pre-glacial civilisation manufact.
On the same “non-historical” bases is possible to affirme that Athens existed during Atlantis empire that it was destroyed by the end of the Ice Age with the increase of sea level  Critias mentions the date of 9.000 years before 400 BCE  that coincide with the end of Ice Age.
And it is possible find tons of modern book that sustain these thesis. 
But is this history ? No
The historical evidence that the Vedas are ancient almost 1800-1200 bce is the fact that in them, for analogy there is an arian pantheon (as Greeks, Germans and Ittits and Mitanni, ecc). 
The first written texts about of arian Pantheon we had in linear B texts in greek, written about 1400 bce and especially in texts of Hittits and Mitanni (2000-1500bce). (The greek linear B and Hittits an Mitanni written systems are decoded only in XX century linear B in 1950) so the autors of XIX century couldn’t have these informations. [Now Out of India theory is illogic and untenable more more probable is an Anatolian origin or Balkan-Russia nomades origin see history of Vinca culture,this it explains migration to the nord and nordic arian religion ) Andronovo culture is much recent, contemporary Hittits that were arians and more sophisticated  (' ]. 
So in the Rig Veda it exists a pantheon that at least ancient as others pantheons. (1800-1200 bce). A similar Rig Veda war exist also in  North Europe mythology between Æsir–Vanir War. Rig Veda as North myths remained open to oral interpolations while in the written cultures the pantheon became closed.  In Rig Veda as in greek  Theogony (written and fixed in VII BCE from Hesiod but the pantheon existed a bit different in linear B XIVc bce) the gods are super-humans, they use the humans. they argue, they are vindicative ecc. They need of Soma or Ambrosia. 
The crystallized greek gods remain simples and anacronistics, the greeks themself not believed them prefering rational philosophy in contrast in the oral Indian religion without written text the gods could evolve in more complex and contradictories figures and with Upanishads philosophy integrated them. The languages evolved also in different terms. Greek for written analysis (verbs irregularities, short compound word, infinite and very specific words continually created or absorbed from other languages as English today) Vedic sanskit but particularly Classic sanskrit for oral analysis and memoring. (sound, long compound words, modular words to indicate new concepts, rational and simple grammar)
(About Rig Veda pantheon analysis I can cite the introduction of history of Indian philosophy of S. Radhakrishnan, the Rig Veda chapitre and comparative conclusion) He knew very well both the classical Western culture and Indian culture.
The Harappa culture is another problem, there is element of these culture in Rig Veda ? Surely they hadn’t arian pantheon and arian language infact the written system at moment isn’t  decoded. If they spoke similar sanskrit language now we could understand the written system. But is probable that elements of Harappa culture entered in Vedas. Surely the legends of a great civilisation that despared remained in the indigenous immaginary. And Arians found that one.
As the Roman Empire myth in the dark medieval Europe overwhelmed by the imposing ruins. An advanced civilisation (the myth of Babyl tower) destroyed by religious fanaticism and human fear. The same ghosts that still exist today....in the globalized world (see Bamyan Buddhas) (and also in wikipedia).
 
I don’t want write on the article i am not specialist and i not english speaker, but I want sustained about origin of Rig Veda that nobody born alone. And that isn’t important be ancient but to be true. And the true and agape had lot of  roads.  (Plutarcs, Dao etc) But history has only the science road.
Malipiero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.76.2 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About date of Rig Veda and religious importance of "to be ancients" for Indians. 

message: It seems India has adopted and absorbed many foreign attributes, a process which is even going on now, (English, clothes, Central Asian meat/cuisine, Hindi/Urdu etc...) It is safe to say that the origins of Hinduism are also foreign and were adopted into a local Indian version that we see today.  But as the original lands from where this texts adopted newer or alternative faiths, the last remaining adherents to what would become the Hindu faith, would be the version found in India.  For this reason, many modern historians now claim that Hinduism itself may not necessarily be a native religion of India, but rather a hybrid of a foreign faith that was brought into India and mixed up into the pagan polytheism that was prevalent in parts of South Asia.  The article should bring attention and mention this very important facet of hinduism as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rig Veda written and imported into India

message: The original text I added on this issue (available below) sounded like full blown propaganda, so I am restating the problem in neutral terms. This is about Wikipedia's NPOV.
A non-neutral article should be journalistic, that is it should contain both sides of a debated issue. The Rig Veda dating does not.
For example the sentence "the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC" should include the other side of the argument also by adding "this is a topic of dispute in current scholarship" Such a harmless sentence exists on other wikipedia pages without the need for references.
That said, the arguments I have presented in my previous addition to this page about the Sarasvati river and such, which are used to counter 'historically accepted' datings of the Rig Veda are all presented in a legitimate reference: 
PDF on Wichmark
The important part is in Page 14 of the pdf document.
I am assuming that anything showing up on Google scholar is a legitimate reference according to Western Scholarship, since anything published outside Western Publishing houses is not given credence, though there is enough written about this issue there also.
To make things easier, let me lift David Frawley's actual text to make my point.
"The Sarasvati is lauded as the main river in the Rig Veda and is the most frequently mentioned river in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in size, the greatest and most central river of the region of the seven rivers.(*11) Sarasvati is said to be "pure in her course from the mountains to the sea."(*12) The Vedic people were well acquainted with this river along its entire course and regarded it as their immemorial homeland. The Sarasvati, as modern land studies now reveals, was indeed one of the largest rivers in India in ancient times (before 1900 BC) and was perhaps the largest river in India (before 3000 BC). In early ancient and pre-historic times, it drained the Sutlej and Yamuna, whose courses were much different than they are today.(*13) However, the Sarasvati river went dry by the end of the Harappan culture and well before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up some centuries before they arrived? Indeed the Sarasvati as described in the Rig Veda as a green and fertile region appears to more accurately show the river as it was prior to the Harappan culture as in the Harappan era it was already in decline. In the Brahmanas and Mahabharata the Sarasvati is said to flow in a desert and in the latter does not even reach the sea. The Sarasvati as a river is later replaced by the Ganges and is almost forgotten in Puranic literature. The stages of the drying up of the river can be traced in Vedic literature showing the Vedic people did not merely come at the last phase of the river's life."
I have emboldened the relevant parts of the text. In this vein, the original Rigveda article should at least mention, from a neutral viewpoint, the alternate date proposed, in this case long before 3000BC, as the above citation explains. 
Google Books allows the access of another David Frawley Book- Gods, Sages and Kings(link below) which has a similar argument about dating on Page 15 :
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DM58BhuR2KwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=David+Frawley&ots=CB-4NlmKut&sig=dFCWHKUODOD_XlHOQEffzNsXCA4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Part of the page has the following words- "The Vedic people had a calendar based upon astronomical sightings based on the equinoctial positions going back from 2000BC to at least 6000BC."
  
Since the oldest Vedic is the Rig Veda, it is quite obvious that this refers to no other book. Furthermore, the notable phrase in the above quote is "at least" since it makes clear that there are much older astronomical references.
Joykrit (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Neutrality of the Dating Issue

message: Regards......Sathya Venkatraman 16:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding your personal website, see WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link addition