Talk:Hinduism/Archive 12

message: Have not seen other proposals yet would like to recommend some improvements that could be made to HeBhagawan's version.
*The history of the Caste system and how it developed from equal status to unbalanced is interesting  - but is it possible to have dates for these changes so to put in a wider context 
*From my limited UK experience, caste seems to be a still controversial issue in India - maybe this section of this version needs some expansion to further detail modern concerns.
*A minor point. The quote marks are not needed in the Sri Ramakrishna quote. By already being in quotes it is obvious it is quotes. Quotes are then used in these quotes if that author is quoting someone else.
Cheers --Lethaniol 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on HeBhagawan's version 

message: HeBhagawan,
I refer to your message on my talk page.
If, you can't understand what I want to say in spite of my devoting a lot of time and placing long series of comments, I am helpless.
If, you can't understand me, how do you understand spiritual books is a surprise to me
In enough words, I said that caste system has no roots in Hindu religion.  It seems to have been given shape by Rishis.  You are complicating by bringing caste, deterioration of caste system giving probabilities, bringing Dalit things, bringing govt. policies.  Why do you have guilt about any social discrimination generated in natural course for which you or me are not responsible?  You are writing here on Hinduism, stick to religious and spiritual things.  Is govt. policy a part of religious thing?  Is religion directly responsible for social discrimiation which has roots in individual minds?
Since you have key-board on hand, you can't keep on writing anything.
I am saying, first decide the axis of this article, Priyanath says he does not understand what is "axis".  When I say that there has to be a central point around which the inclusions have to revolve, yet you don't understand.  Probably, you are over worked and stressed and full of confusions.  Pl. take a break or show some patience and you will understand.  With tired mind you won't be able to understand.
I removed the paras as I felt and said, "this is controversial we will discuss.  Pl. give 24 hrs."  (18.17 of 7/11/06) yet you revert my edit at 18.53hrs. of the same day, just in 36 minutes with remark that "do not do major deletion without discussion."  I asked whether these inclusion was after discussion then pl. give me date, I will check archive.  I said that if this inclusion was without discussion, my removal is right.  There is no answer to this query.  I said that nothing cause damage if a para or two does not remain in article for a day or two.
I am giving my views.  Bakasuprman and Saiva Suj gives his views that caste is not integral part of Hindu religion, yet you want to include, so you put it for vote.
Your interest to retain these paras make one think that 1) You want to dictate your will on everyone and for that you will put it on vote and wait till you get some of your friends come and vote in your support or 2) You want to promote particular theory, the reason for which you only know.
At the back of your mind, you think that the article belongs to you.  This is the cause of dispute.  Why can't you allow these paras to be dropped when editors like Baka, Saiva and if I mistake not Priyanath also comment no necessity.
You will understand only if you have will. 
swadhyayee 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a conglomerate version of the two proposed sections (with some minor edits to wiki links). A lot of people will expect to see something detailed on caste in this article, but wether this would make it too long in comparison the other sections I'm not sure? Om Tat Sat, ys, GourangaUK 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste Not a part of Hindu Religion. 

message: HeBhagawan,
I do agree that my tone is angry but does not mean to insult you.  The thing which project Hinduism dimly does irritate me.  You are not open to change and to serve the purpose, you go to any extent.
I am sure that the two small contoversial paras I removed, were not included after discussion.  I removed them with summary that give 24 hours we will discuss.  You reverted this in 36 minutes.  You will answer to anything, I will address to anyone but you did not answer to my question to Priyanath to tell whether a discussion had already taken than rough dates to help me to check archives.  This indicates that no discussion had taken place while these two controversial paras were included.  Priyanath has also kept silent.
First thing that you should have understood the paras I object were irrelevant and lower the quality of the article.  At least you should understand after initial comments of Baka and Saivasuj.
If, they would have supported you, you would have told, Oh, Wah etc. and send them Barnstars also but when they could not support you, you put the matter for voting without consensus.  I have never said caste should not be mentioned but you project as if I am telling to remove entire caste section.  You go to the extent of providing my version.  This all indicate that you possess the mentality to be one different and superior and not one of all.
The placing of the matter for voting is your one attempt to allow irrelevant things in the article.  Now, you will invite every editors be it with knowledge of Hinduism or not.  When your versions are not supported, you try to re-word them rather than dropping them.
This is too much.  If you find me angry, the remedy remains with you to keep me cool.
swadhyayee 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HeBhagawan, I do angry that my tone is.. 

message: Please don't mention long stories of mental conjectures how caste arose and what govt is doing against it (actually the opposite: the politicians of India secretly want the illiterate masses to continue with the caste system to bake their own bread, eating all public money). Also, the varnas are not the caste system of today. Cygnus_hansa 04:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caste

message: This article is not neutral AT ALL. So many places it say Hindu idea as the truth when INSTEAD were supposed to describe Hindu beliefs as detached observers.Opiner 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not neutral

message: The article is full of informations and in my opinion it is a well balanced article. There is nothing which can have any place for intolerance. Hindus are very very very intelligent, have power for tolerance, non-violent, well step taken and have so many qualities, which any community of the wolrd is not possessing. In my world tour, I have observed very keenly the charecters and qualities of the Hindus and I am proud of it, that I am born Hindu and again and again will like to born Hindu in every rebirth.
What is good or what is bad in the article, it could be a matter of discussions? After all we have to conclude the discussion somewhere. We should well honour and pay honour to our brother Hindus. After all they are sharing their views to come at the right conclusion. Nobody should feel that he have defeated or gained in discussion. Why we should fight for high or low moustaches? Hindus are intelligent, there is no place for any malice inbetween. "Nafarat hee sahi, dil ko dukhane ke liye aa" and "hamase hai jamana, jamane se ham nahin".user:Debbe 09 Novemebr 2006, 12:40 PM IST
:I have repeatedly been saying that this article is not encyclopedic at all; I am also a Hindu but as a wikipedian, we are supposed to write these articles from NPOV and yes, detachment. It has nothing to with the fact that Hindus are intelligent or stupid. Cygnus_hansa 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Mister Swan Swan. Exactly.Opiner 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May you please explain what is non-neutral about the article? What are the biases present in the article? Saying that it is NPOV but not stating where it is, unfortunately is not going to help. GizzaChat © 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't completely understand what you are saying. Can you give a specific example? Thanks GizzaChat © 07:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)
According to the monotheistic and pantheistic theologies of Hinduism, God is, in the highest sense, One:  beyond form, infinite, and eternal. God is changeless and is the very source of consciousness.  God is beyond time, space, and causation and yet permeates everything and every being. God is beyond  gender.Swami Bhaskarananda, Ritualistic Worship and Its Utility  When God is thought of as this infinite principle, God is called Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman does not exist; it is existence itself. It is not all-knowing; it is knowledge itself.
This is one of the paragraphs in a section that you claimed to be POV. The first sentence does say "According to the monotheistic and panthestic theologies of Hinduism." It doesn't straightaway say Brahman is this, Brahman is that. Do you want every sentence to say that "Hindus believe Brahman is the Absolute," "while Hindus also believe that Brahman is existence" and "Hindus claim that God is beyond gender" Is that all you want to be added in every sentence? Note that the last few sentences are talking about what Brahman is, ie) a description of Brahman. It will break the flow of the description if you want those bits and pieces to every sentence. Of course we should state that Brahman for example, is a Hindu notion. GizzaChat © 08:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this train of thought for the same reason DaGizza gives above. If the article states 'according to Hinduism...' and then speaks from the perspective of Hinduism that is not biased or POV. It is just more concise than repeatedly saying 'according to Hinduism xyz is abc' in each and every sentence. Surely no-one reading the article can take statements regarding God as factual - they are meant as being from Hinduism perspective - it's intrinsic to the article itself. Ys, GourangaUK 10:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Even NPOV may be tempered by common sense. The main purpose of an article on a religion is to elucidate that religion's worldview. Of course it should be made clear who precisely within this religion holds certain things. Opiner seems to assume there is such a thing as "the Hindu point of view", while in Hinduism in particular, diversity is so great that it is difficult to make any statement at all that holds for its entire population of adherents. And of course criticism from outside the religion may be discussed if pertinent. And of course, every statement must still be sourced, after all Wikipedia itself is no authority on Hinduism, for statements on "God this or God that", we still have to make clear for every one where we got them. However, NPOV does not dictate that we break article flow after every such statement to say "according to atheists, assorted monotheists, Mbuti mythology, and Derrida, things are different" because that isn't our topic here. Looking over it I must say the article looks rather better than it used to. It is quite an achievment to summarize such a diverse topic at all, but it is again much too long. We have pruned it below 65k in an FA bid. It is again above 90k. It seems that people have the tendency to pile up material on their favourite subsection and ignore the overall structure. You have got to reduce its size again, sorry. dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Had a look at the Christianity article for comparison. They have a section on Beliefs there (maybe a structure that could be considered here) but even in that section each paragraph states at start "Christians believe ..." (and many versions of), but not for every statement on belief. Therefore I think Opiner is plain wrong and taking NPOV to the extreme. I agree with Dbachmann and DaGizza - we need to temper articles with common sense. Though I agree with Opiner and Dbachmann that all statements saying that X believes Y should have appropriate references. :):) 
Lethaniol 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why fighting for high or low moustache ?

message: The article should be splitted and should be transferred to the new pages as is done in Raja Yoga article. By this way, the controversial parts for discussions will be segregated and those who want to contribute in constructive way, they will participate constrictively and will try to make concensus upto the conclusion. This is a big article and many thoughts came together simultaneously to every mind and "Munde Munde matirbhinna" will always create problem which will be endless.user:Debbe, 10 November 2006, 17:45 [UTC]
I think, Deb it is Tunde, Tunde Matirbhinna.  I am not so sure. swadhyayee 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be segregated in different sections and catagories pages 

message: #Do you know what is really interesting about the voting on caste above? Almost none of the people have voted on their own versions. This indicates to me that the editors are really trying to be fair and objective. Good job, everybody. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with voting for your own version; just that it is a good sign when people are willing to choose something because it is good rather than becasue it is theirs).
#Even though I changed my vote, and am no longer voting for my own version, it seems to have the most votes. I think that pretty soon we should incorporate the winning version into the article. However, I don't want anybody to be unhappy. If anybody would be extremely unhappy with this result, we can have another runoff vote between the top two vote-getters, which would be my version and "Swadhyayee's version" (although Swadhyayee doesn't like calling it that). If we do a runoff we can change the names to Version 1 and Version 2. If nobody requests a runoff vote, then I think we should incorporate the winning version into the article. Thanks to everybody for your participation in the democratic process! 
HeBhagawan 13:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's incorporate HeBhagawan's version into the article. But I think so many people voted for, and made comments about, the article being too long, that we should allow for some trimming. (see: two votes for Baka's short version, two votes for my short version, two of the five votes for HeBhagawan's version suggested shortening.)  Not blanking, which causes an article to lose coherency and context, but appropriate trimming. ॐ Priyanath 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A trimmed version of HeBhagawan would be perfect. GizzaChat © 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have Indian caste system to discuss caste among Hindus. A small paragraph with a link to the main article is more useful.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The voting was in favor of HeBhagawan's version. We should put it up, as is, and leave it there. That's a legitimate way of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Then, any changes beyond that should be discussed here first, also per Wikipedia guidelines (not a rule, but a suggested way of resolving editing disuptes that get too heated). ॐ Priyanath 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HeBhagwan and Priyanath, while I do appreciate your initiative for discussion, what can be explained better at Indian caste system should be kept there, with maybe a one paragraph descriptor on this article. The article is way too long (93 KB) and per WP:SIZE definitely needs to use the subarticles Karma in Hinduism, Reincarnation, Indian caste system, Agama Hindu Dharma, Vaishnavism, Advaita Vedanta, etc. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Baka - that's exactly what I've been saying. Shorter would be better. Let's start to trim this down. ॐ Priyanath 03:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The voting

message: It has been brought to my attention that the articles on tantra and shakti need some serious work. Does anybody who has knowledge or good resources in this area want to work with me on those articles? HeBhagawan 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, these articles do need work. Major work. I am willing to work on the Shakti article even though I am not particularly knowlegeble in that area, but I would love to help.--ॐ Seadog ॐ 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I am very willing to help expecially on the weekends. I think the article needs an image, but the question is what image does it need?--ॐ Seadog ॐ 13:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree but my public library has only 3 Hinduism books and none of those contain any info on Shakti. If anyone has any that would be great.--ॐ Seadog ॐ 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have surfed the net a little bit and I honestly can't find "high-quality info". I shall keep looking.--ॐ Seadog ॐ 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakti

message: What happened to the Vivekananda picture? Does anybody know how to fix it?HeBhagawan 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the width, to 300px, and that fixed it. I don't know why, but I've seen this happen before. The picture is bigger than others on the page now, but at least you can see it. ॐ Priyanath 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is weird, but look at the Krishna universal form picture. It is now gone. This is very weird.--ॐ Seadog ॐ 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Priyanath! That is wierd, but it looks like you figured out the key to the problem. Good work! HeBhagawan 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivekananda pic

message: Swadhyayee, what exactly are you trying to do with your edits in the article? I thought the table of contents looked very good the way Arjun made it. HeBhagawan 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he wanted to see how it would work, he never actully bothered with the Tocleft but he addded a large gap in the editing window. I also removed a picture that would not work.--ॐ Seadog ॐ 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying

message: I am Harsh Nevatia, writer on Hinduism at suite101.com. I desire to add my main page "[link removed]" to the external links section. Please advise how this can be done. I can be contacted at [link removed].
210.18.165.11 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you are not allowed to add your website. This is known as spam or advertising and Wikipedia cannot be used for this purpose. GizzaChat © 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to external links 

message: I copy-edited several sections of the Hinduism page earlier today. I think the page content is quite impressive, but it could use some more copy-editing for length, grammar, clarity etc., and I'll be glad to contribute in the coming days/weeks. Since most of my upcoming edits will not change the page "content" I would prefer not to discuss each of them in advance on the Talk page, although I'll try to write informative edit summaries. Obviously I'll be extra cautious in editing 'controversial' sections, such as the one relating to the caste system, at least till am I am conversant with the  community here. If any editor here objects to this approach, or any of my edits in particular please drop me a note.
Lastly thanks to HeBhagawan for the the polite welcome Abecedare 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! - An editor who's working on length, grammar, clarity! Be still my heart! I'd like to welcome you too, Abecedare. Good work! ॐ Priyanath 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Priyanath's comment!!!!! HeBhagawan 01:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abecedare's copyedits 

message: I recently copy-edited the Classification of scriptures section, and noticed that its material significantly overlaps with The Vedas and later scriptures and thus creates a lot of redundancy/excess length. I propose that we merge the two sections into one, perhaps titled "Hindu Literature" or "Hindu Scriptures" (other suggestions welcome) with an introduction based on the some of the current content of Classification of scriptures and two subsections titled Sruti and Smriti where the actual texts are described (in short). 
Any suggestions and/or objections ? Abecedare 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I don't know either way. If you can verify the information, I think we can add edit the content along the following lines: "The Bhagavad Gītā is described as the essence of the Vedas, and as such lies at the intersection of the artificial Shruti - Smriti divide. In fact, it is even classified as an Upanishad by some." It will also be useful to add a citation for this statement. Your thoughts ? Abecedare 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is what I had in mind. I have tried to combine the two sections mentioned above into one, without (at least intentionally) deleting any content. Yet, as you'll note the amalgam is shorter than the sum of its parts - which I consider to be positive.  And to address HeBhagwan's point: I agree with you that the classification of scriptures is not a relevant detail for this page. I use it just as an aid to break up, what otherwise would be a long essay, into more digestible sections.Will appreciate any feedback Abecedare 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: #I like your idea of breaking it up into digestible parts and it is also a boon if the sections can be combined to make them shorter than the sum of their parts.
#I don't think we should call your new section "Open Canon." I would prefer something like "Many Paths, Many Scriptures."  If you say "Open Canon" it sounds like that is almost a dogma or doctrine. Open canon is not a formal doctrine; it's just the way the scriptures are treated in practice. There are probably some who would charge in alleging that the article is incorrectly claiming that the scriptures specifically call for an open canon if you make it the heading of a section. But I don't think anybody will complain if you call it an open canon within a section called "Many Paths, Many scriptures."HeBhagawan
I have replaced the  two sections with the merged version. I have changed the subsection heading from "Open Canon", to "Many Scriptures, many paths" - you made a good point that the former section title  was likely to be misunderstood as a religious diktat, rather than the word choice of a single wikipedia editor! We need a section heading in the first place, (1) as a delimiter between that content and the Smriti section, and (2) because in my opinion, the openness to other scriptures, should be discussed after we have at least outlined the fundamental shastras.
Hopefully other editors here will be able to further improve this section. For instance, in interest  of length perhaps we can remove the summary of Upanishad teachings from this section since that is dealt with, and indeed is a major theme, of other sections on the page. On the other hand the summary is particularly cogent. Anyone with ideas ? Abecedare 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Scriptures 

message: Namaskar. The title and content of this section to me seems random. I specifically don't like "the cow". I agree that vegetarianism should be included in Ahiṃsa, however, that in turn, should be listed under a section on Yamas and Niyamas. I can understand that especially Westerners are very curious about the cow that we "worship", but if we must keep it, it should be in its own small section, with a link to the Sacred Cow article, though I have not read it yet.
Also, in the section about the Ashramas of life, I would like to mention the pilgrimage of Brahamana Brahmacaris before (possibly) becoming gṛhasṭas. I understand that the length of the article is an issue, but I feel that Yama/Niyama is more important some of the other content we have there (like snana...I was very surprised to read about that there. if things like that are included then why not pradakshina, and other very very particular/peculiar things?).
Namaḥṣivaya, ॐ Śaiva Sujīţ ॐ 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Shaiva and HeBhagawn. I changed the title to the holy cow rather than just plain the cow. I didn't think that The cow came across very well. What do you think about this change.--Seadog 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind instead I am trying something new. I took out the cow compleatly. I did this due to the huge width of the TOC. I of course kept the info and the mainpage link. Does anybody object to this edit.--Seadog 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the cow should be in the section, but you can take it out of the TOC. We may need to trim and re-word the paragraph on the cow, but lets not delete it from the article completely. Many western readers will want to know about it. Many westerners have the misconception that cow-worship is a central doctrine in Hinduism. So it should be addressed, even if only briefly, in the main article. Then there can be a link to the other article for more information. HeBhagawan 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahimsa, vegetarianism, and the cow